Firoz Khan vs State Of Jharkhand (Through Ats) on 15 January, 2026

Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad

Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad

                                                        [2026:JHHC:1037-DB]




   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                    Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1538 of 2025
                                  ---------
   Firoz Khan, aged about 47 years, son of Hakim Khan, Resident of
   Azad Nagar, Bazar Tand Khelari, P.O.-Khelari, P.S.-Khelari,
   District-Ranchi, Jharkhand.
                                                       ... ... Appellant
                                  Versus
   State of Jharkhand (Through ATS)                  ... ... Respondent
                                  ---------
   CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
                                 ----------
   For the Appellant        : Mr. B.M. Tripathy, Sr. Advocate
                              Mr. Naveen Kr. Jaiswal, Advocate
   For the Respondent       : Mr. Vishwanath Roy, Spl. P.P.
                                -----------
                 th
   03/Dated: 15 January, 2026

1. Counter affidavit, in terms of the order dated 15.12.2025, has been
   sought to be accepted in the Court.

2. It has been submitted by the learned State counsel that the copy
   thereof has been supplied to Mr. Naveen Kr. Jaiswal, learned counsel
   for the appellant who is on record.

3. The same is accepted and taken on record.

4. Mr. B.M. Tripathy, learned senior counsel representing the appellant
   has not insisted for time to file response to the counter affidavit
   rather he has submitted that he is ready to argue the matter.

5. Accordingly, this Court has proceeded to hear the matter on merit.

6. The instant appeal filed under Section 21(4) of the National
   Investigation Agency Act, 2008, is directed against the order dated
   28.11.2025 passed in Misc. Criminal Application No. 2311 of 2025
   by the learned Addl. Judicial Commissioner-XVIII-cum-Spl. Judge,
   CID/ATS, Ranchi, whereby and whereunder the regular bail of the
   appellant in connection with ATS Court Case No.01 of 2024 arising
   out of ATS P.S. Case No.10 of 2023 registered under Section
   385/386/34 of IPC and 16/17/20/21 of UA(P) Act, has been rejected.

7. Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that
   the present appeal is the second attempt for consideration of the bail


                                   1
                                                          [2026:JHHC:1037-DB]




   of the appellant since on earlier occasion, the prayer for bail has been
   rejected by this Court vide order dated 04.04.2025 passed in
   Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 937 of 2024.

8. It has been contended that the said order dated 04.04.2025 has been
   carried to the Hon'ble Supreme Court by filing special leave appeal
   being Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) no. 7705 of 2025 which has
   also been dismissed vide order dated 19.05.2025 but with an
   observation by giving liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh
   application for regular bail in the event that the trial does not proceed
   within a period of six months.

9. Learned senior counsel, based upon the aforesaid ground, has
   submitted that the impugned order needs to be interfered with and
   the appellant be directed to be released on bail.

10. While, on the other hand, learned Special Public Prosecutor
   appearing for the respondent-State has vehemently opposed the
   prayer for bail of the appellant on the strength of the stand inter alia
   taken in the counter affidavit which has been filed in terms of the
   order dated 15.12.2025.

11. It has been submitted that in pursuance of the order passed by the
   Hon'ble Supreme Court, the trial is in progress and out of 13
   chargesheeted witnesses, 07 witnesses have already been examined
   and the trial will be concluded within six months.

12. Learned Special Public Prosecutor, based upon the aforesaid ground,
   has submitted that in view of the statement made at paragraph-12 of
   the counter affidavit as also taking into consideration the nature of
   allegation as levelled against the appellant, the present appeal is not
   to be allowed by showing interference with the impugned order
   passed by the learned Special Judge.

13. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

14. It needs to refer herein that this Court, on earlier occasion, while
   rejecting the prayer for bail of the present appellant vide order dated
   04.04.2025 in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 937 of 2024, has already
   expressed its view on merit of the case by taking into consideration

                                    2
                                                              [2026:JHHC:1037-DB]




the settled proposition of law. For ready reference, the relevant
paragraph(s) of the said order is being referred as under:

   "57. It is evident from record that instant matter relates to a
   multidimensional organised crime by gang of Aman Srivastava, and
   FIR was instituted under Sections 385/386/34 of the Indian Penal Code,
   and also for the offence under Sections 16/17/ 20/ 21 of UA (P) Act,
   1967 and after investigation charge-sheet dated 07.01.2024 has been
   submitted against these appellants for offence under Sections
   385/386/34 of the Indian Penal Code, and also for the offence under
   Sections 16/17/20/21 of UA (P) Act, 1967.
   58. Admittedly herein due to want of the requisite sanction as per the
   mandate of UAP Act 1967, initially the court concerned has taken the
   cognizance of the offence under section 385/386/34 of the Indian Penal
   Code only and thereafter the aforesaid appellants have preferred their
   prayer for bail before the special Judge but even then, the same has
   been rejected.
   59. Thereafter, requisite sanction for the offence with respect to offence
   under section 16,17,20,21 of the Act, 1967 has been accorded on
   24.04.2024 by the competent authority i.e. Deputy Commissioner
   Ranchi, vide memo no. 2394 dated 29.04.2024 and accordingly, the
   cognizance of the offences under sections 16/17/20/21 of Unlawful
   Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 has also been taken by the learned
   Trial Court and consequently, the matter has been fixed for addition of
   charge which would be evident from the order dated 08.05.2024 passed
   by A.J.C. XVIII cum Spl. Judge ATS, Ranchi in ATS Court Case
   No.01/2024.
   60. Now, we are adverting to various paragraphs of the case diary in
   order to find out the culpability of these appellants in the alleged crime.
   61. It is evident from record that the name of the appellants Mahmud
   Alam @ Nepali, Firoz Khan and Mohammad Zahir Ansari @ Zahir
   Ansari has come in the confessional statement of Ezaj Ansari and
   Minku Khan, wherein, they have stated that the extorted money which
   had been recovered from them was to hand over to aforesaid appellants
   near Alam Hospital, and the said money was collected as Rangdari by
   Aman Srivastava gang from different traders.
   62. It is evident from various paragraph of the case diary that these
   appellants are member of a notorious gang of the area, which is
   operating for collection of ransom/levy from different traders etc. of the
   locality. Further, co-accused Ezaj Ansari and Minku Khan (appellant
   herein) were going to handover the money collected as ransom to the
   appellants, namely, Mahmud Alam @ Nepali, Firoz Khan and
   Mohammad Zahir Ansari @ Zahir Ansari and this fact was surfaced
   during investigation based on the statements of the co-accused. This
   fact is prima facie sufficient to show the complicity of these appellants
   in the crime of serious nature.
   63. In para-2 of the case diary, the seizure-list is referred which fully
   supported the prosecution case and further, the name of the appellants,
   namely, Ezaj Ansari and Minku Khan is mentioned in the seizure-list
   having the possession of the white Scorpio Car from which the cash
   amount of Rs. 49,83,000/- was recovered.
   64. Further, at paragraphs-9,10,11, 12 and 115 of the case diary
   wherein the statement of witnesses has been referred as also
   paragraphs-23 and 25 of the case diary, the statement of the witness of
   seizure recorded, by which, the case of the prosecution has fully been
   corroborated.

                                    3
                                                                 [2026:JHHC:1037-DB]




       65. The appellants, namely, Minku Khan and the co-accused Ezaj
       Ansari have confessed their involvement in the instant case in their
       statements mentioned at Paragraphs-16 and 17 of the case diary. The
       alleged ransom money, i.e., Rs.49,83,000/- was also recovered from a
       vehicle through which these accused/appellants were traveling.
       66. Further, at paragraph-109 of the case diary, the connectivity chart
       of mobile numbers of accused persons were recorded which shows that
       they were connected to each other to carry out the conspiracy and
       alleged offence.
       67. Thus, from the aforesaid fact prima facie, it is evident that these
       appellants are associates of Aman Srivastava gang who are involved in
       various criminal cases.
       68. Thus, it appears that there is sufficient prima facie evidence which
       indicates the complicity of the appellants to the organized crime
       syndicate which suggests that the appellants were facilitating the
       alleged crime.
       69. Further, in the counter affidavit, it has been mentioned that if the
       relief as prayed by the appellants is granted, there is every chance of
       disruption of evidence, because supplementary investigation is still
       going on.
       70. Learned counsel for the appellants has taken the ground of custody
       of the appellants as they have been languishing in the custody from one
       and half year approximately.
       71. While, on the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the
       respondent-State has seriously disputed the aforesaid fact apart from
       the merit that the present appellants are having close association with
       the Aman Srivastava Gang.
       72. Considering the above facts and circumstances and after going
       through the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, case diary, and other
       documentary evidence, it is evident that there is direct and serious
       allegation against the appellants which shows the nexus with the
       member of Aman Srivastava Gang.
       73. In the context of aforesaid, this Court, is of view that there is no
       quarrel about the settled position of law that Article 21 of the
       Constitution of India provides for protecting the fundamental right of
       liberty but that is to be assessed by carving out the balance in enforcing
       the law and order.
       76. Thus, in the light of the aforesaid settled proposition of law the
       contention of the learned counsel is that the case of prosecution is
       doubtful because the instant case is only supported by highly interested
       official witnesses and none of the independent witnesses have supported
       the case, is not tenable herein.
       77. Accordingly, this Court, on the basis of the aforesaid facts as
       referred hereinabove as also the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble
       Apex Court, is of the view that it cannot be said that the allegation
       levelled against the appellants is prima facie untrue."
15. The appellant of the present case has approached before the Hon'ble
   Supreme Court challenging the order dated 04.04.2025 passed in
   Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 937 of 2024 wherein the Hon'ble
   Supreme Court has declined to interfere with the said order,
   however, with the liberty to the petitioner to renew the prayer for bail


                                       4
                                                                [2026:JHHC:1037-DB]




   if the trial will not proceed within a period of six months from the
   date of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

16. The order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is being referred as
   under:

          "Upon hearing the counsel the Court made the following
                                          ORDER

We find no reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the High Court.

However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to file a fresh application for regular bail in the event that the trial does not proceed, within a period of six months.

The Special Leave Petitioner is, accordingly, dismissed with the aforesaid liberty.

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of."

17. Accordingly, the instant appeal has been filed by renewing the prayer for bail.

18. This case was heard by this Court on 15.12.2025 and after having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the learned State counsel was directed to seek instructions and file counter affidavit and pursuant thereto, the counter affidavit has been filed.

19. It has been contended therein that the trial is at pace and out of 13 chargesheeted witnesses, 07 witnesses have already been examined and the trial of the case is to be concluded within a period of six months.

20. It also needs to refer herein that in the similar circumstances in the case of Ajay Turi vs. The State of Jharkhand [Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 133 of 2023] which had been dismissed by rejecting the prayer for bail, the appellant of the said case had approached before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court had declined to interfere with the order passed by this Court rejecting the prayer for bail of the said appellant with the liberty to the petitioner to file fresh bail application in the event if trial does not proceed further.

[2026:JHHC:1037-DB]

21. Thereafter, the said appellant made a motion before this Court by filing appeal being Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 840 of 2025 renewing the prayer for bai.

22. This Court, had called for the counter affidavit in the said case wherein it had been stated that the trial had progressed and charges had already been framed against the said appellant and further substantial number of witnesses had already been examined, as such, taking into consideration the said aspects, this Court had dismissed the said appeal.

23. Here, in the present case also, this Court has taken into consideration the fact, as per the statement made in the counter affidavit, that the trial has progressed and in terms of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the trial is also at pace since out of 13 chargesheeted witnesses, 07 witnesses have already been examined and as per the affidavit filed by the State, the trial will be concluded a period of six months.

24. Regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the case as stated hereinabove, this Court in view of the fact that the trial, as per the submission made by the State, will be concluded within a period of six months, is of the view that, at present, it will not be proper for this Court to interfere with the impugned order since this Court had already applied its mind on merits as would be evident from the order dated 04.04.2025 passed in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 937 of 2024 which has also been declined to be interfered with by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

25. Considering the aforesaid fact, this Court is of the view that the present appeal is not fit to be allowed. Accordingly, the present appeal stands rejected, as such, disposed of.

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)

(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) 15th January, 2026

Saurabh/-