[Cites 48, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Kundan Kumar Aged About 26 Years S/O- ... vs National Investigation Agency on 11 March, 2026
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad, Gautam Kumar Choudhary
2026:JHHC:6421-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Appeal (DB) No.1508 of 2025
-----
Kundan Kumar aged about 26 years s/o- Hari Giri, resident
of Village- H1, Kusai Colony, Doranda, Near Bijli Office, P.O.
& P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi.
.... ... Appellant
Versus
National Investigation Agency, New Delhi, N.I.A. Building,
Opp. Dyal Singh College Road, C.G.O. Complex, Pragati
Vihar, New Delhi, P.O. & P.S.-New Delhi, District-New Delhi,
PIN-110003. .... ... Respondent
-------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY
-------
For the Appellant : Mr. Abhinay Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate
Mr. Vineet Sinha, Advocate
------
C.A.V. on 20.02.2026 Pronounced on 11/03/2026
Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
Prayer:
1. The instant appeal preferred under Section 21(1) of the
National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 is directed against
the order dated 20.09.2025 passed in Misc. Cr. Application
No. 1738 of 2025 by learned Additional Judicial
Commissioner-XVI-cum-Special Judge, NIA, Ranchi whereby
and whereunder the prayer for bail in connection with Special
(NIA) Case No. 01 of 2021, RC Case No.-01/2021/NIA/RNC
arising out of Balumath P.S. Case No. 234 of 2020 registered
under Sections 147, 148, 149, 353, 504, 506, 307, 427, 435,
386, 387, 120B, 121A and 216 of the Indian Penal Code;
Section 25(1)(b), 26, 27 and 35 of the Arms Act; Section 3 and
4 of Explosive Substance Act; Section 10, 13, 16(1)(b), 20 and
2026:JHHC:6421-DB
23 of UA(P) Act and Section 17 of CLA Act, 1908, has been
rejected.
Factual Matrix
2. The brief facts of the case, as per the prosecution version,
which required to be enumerated reads hereunder as:-
3. The prosecution case is based on the information
received by Balumath police station that at about 19 hours
on 18.12.2020, some unknown persons were burning
vehicles by firing indiscriminately near check post no.1 near
Tetariakhand colliery. Assailants fired on the police party that
had rushed to the spot. Accused persons had burnt four
trucks one motorcycle and injured four civilians. The
remnants of the burnt vehicles, fragments of a cane bomb
with wire, a white colour empty gallon of approx. 02 liters,
spent cartridges and three hand written pamphlets
containing threats to the transporters and coal companies,
involved in the mining area signed by one Pradip Ganjhu (A-
3) were found from the spot. Upon further inquiry it was
revealed that gangster Sujit Sinha(A-1) and Aman Sahu
@Aman Sao(A-2) had conspired with accused Pradeep Ganjhu
(A-3) and his associates namely Santosh Ganjhu, Bihari
Ganjhu, Sakendra Ganjhu, Pramod Ganjhu and others to
collect extortion from CCL transporters, contractors, holders
and disruption of government works.
2026:JHHC:6421-DB
4. Accordingly, Balumath P.S. Case No. 234/2020 dated
19.12.2020 was registered u/s 147, 148, 149, 353, 504, 506,
307, 427, 435, 386, 387 and 120B of IPC section 27 of Arms
Act, Section 3/4 of the Explosive Substance Act and under
Section 10, 13, 16(1)(b), 20 and 23 of UA(P) Act.
5. The ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) Government of India
in view of the gravity of the offence and its cross border and
international ramification issued orders in exercise of the
powers vested under Section 6(5) read with section 8 of the
NIA Act 2008, directed the NIA to take up the investigation of
the aforesaid case. On the direction of the Ministry of Home
Affairs, NIA re-registered case no 01/2021/NIA-RNC dated
04.03.2021 under section 147, 148, 149, 353, 504, 506, 307,
427, 435, 386, 387, 120B,, 121A, 216 of IPC Section 25(1)(b),
26, 27 and 35 of Arms Act section 3 & 4 of Explosive
Substance Act section 17 CLA Act and section 10, 13, 16(1),
(b), 20 and 23 UA(P) Act.
6. After investigation NIA submitted 2nd supplementary
charge-sheet against Pankaj Karmali @ Khetia (A-23), Vikash
Anand Ojha @ Abhishek (A-26), Akash Kumar Roy @ Monu
Roy (A-27) and the present appellant Kundan Kumar (A-28).
7. The appellant has been apprehended and taken into
custody on 19.07.2021, i.e., after taking over the
investigation by the NIA and, as such, prayer for bail was
2026:JHHC:6421-DB
made before Special Judge NIA Ranchi by filing Misc. Cr.
Application No. 2362 of 2024 but the same has been rejected
vide order dated 28.01.2023 against which the Cr. Appeal
(DB) No.298 of 2023 was preferred before this Court, which
was dismissed on merit vide order dated 30.06.2023.
8. Subsequently, the appellant again preferred Criminal
Appeal (D.B.) No. 226 of 2025 which was dismissed as not
pressed and disposed of vide order dated 25.03.2025 by this
Court. Thereafter again prayer for bail was made before the
Special Judge NIA, Ranchi by filing Misc. Cr. Application No
1702 of 2025, which has been dismissed as withdrawn on
26.08.2025.
9. Further, the appellant again preferred Criminal Appeal
(D.B.) (Filing) No. 16283 of 2025 and the same was
withdrawn on the ground of maintainability vide order dated
06/08/2025 passed by co-ordinate Bench of this Court.
10. Thereafter, again Misc. Cr. Application No. 1738 of 2025
has been filed by the appellant before the learned Special
Judge, NIA Ranchi which has been dismissed vide order
dated 20.09.2025, against which the present appeal has been
preferred.
Submission on behalf of appellant:
11. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant, has
submitted that the impugned order is fit to be quashed and
2026:JHHC:6421-DB
set aside on the ground that no incriminating material has
been found to substantiate the involvement of the appellant
in the instant case.
12. It has been contended that nothing has been surfaced in
course of investigation by which it can be said that the
appellant had provided harbor to Shahrukh Ansari and Vikas
Anand Ojha.
13. The appellant is neither named in the FIR nor any
incriminating article has been recovered from his possession.
14. Submission has been made that except the charge of
harboring terrorists, that too in second supplementary
charge-sheet, no any strong material has been found during
the course of investigation, as produced by the NIA but that
aspect of the matter has not been taken into consideration by
the learned trial court.
15. It has been contended that other co accused person,
namely, Santosh Kumar @ Banti Yadav, has been granted the
privilege of regular bail vide order dated 09.11.2022 passed in
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 98 of 2022, and another co
accused, namely, Pritam Kumar @ Chiku Yadav @ Chiku, has
been granted the privilege of regular bail vide order dated
22.12.2022 passed in Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 205 of 2022,
and another co accused persons, namely, Jasim Ansari and
Wasim Ansari, have been granted the privilege of regular bail
2026:JHHC:6421-DB
vide order dated 03.01.2023 passed in Criminal Appeal (D.B.)
No.435 of 2022, and another co accused, namely, Jahiruddin
Ansari, has been granted the privilege of regular bail vide
order dated 03.01.2023 passed in Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No.
51 of 2022, and another co accused, namely, Santosh Yadav
@Santosh Kumar Yadav, has been granted the privilege of
regular bail vide order dated 18.01.2023 passed in Criminal
Appeal (D.B.) No.204 of 2022, and another co accused,
namely, Prabhat Kumar Yadav @ Dimple Yadav @Prabhat
Kumar, has been granted the privilege of regular bail vide
order dated 05.03.2025 passed in Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No.
1412 of 2023, and the case of the appellant is similar to that
of the case aforementioned co-accused.
16. Further, taking the ground of custody submission has
been made that the appellant is in custody since 19.07.2021.
17. Further ground has been taken that though charge-sheet
has been submitted and charge has been framed way back in
year 2021 but till date evidences of the witness has not been
concluded and there is no chance of conclusion of trial in
near future, due to large number of witnesses and documents
in connection with N.I.A. Case.
18. The learned counsel for the appellant on the aforesaid
premise has submitted that the order dated 20.09.2025 by
which bail of the present appellant has been rejected by
2026:JHHC:6421-DB
special Judge NIA Ranchi may require interference of this
Court and the present appellant may be enlarged on bail.
Submission on behalf of respondent:
19. While on the other hand, Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned
counsel appearing for the National Investigation Agency (NIA),
has submitted that specific attributability has come against
the appellant to the effect that he was arrested from Swanti
Kundan Enclave by Namkum Police and six country made
pistols and 27 cartridges were recovered from the said flat
which was in presence of the appellant basis upon which he
has been arrayed as an accused (A-28).
20. It has been contended by referring to paragraph 17.23,
17.24, 17.26 and 17.36 of the 2nd supplementary charge-
sheet wherein specific involvement of the appellant has been
surfaced in course of investigation of giving active support to
the organization and even the recovery of arms and
ammunitions have been made from the flat where the
appellant was present along with one Akash Kumar Roy @
Monu (A-27).
21. It has also been stated by referring to an order passed by
Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Akash Kumar
Roy dated 13.02.2023 in Criminal Appeal (DB) No.1238 of
2022 wherefrom it is evident that prayer for regular bail of
said Akash Kumar Roy has been rejected and according to
2026:JHHC:6421-DB
learned counsel, the case of Akash Kumar Roy is exactly
similar to that the appellant of this case and as such, even
on the issue of parity, it is not a fit case to interfere in the
impugned order.
22. It has been contended by rebutting the argument
advanced on behalf of the appellant that the case of the
appellant is identical to that of the case of other co-accused
persons but herein the allegation as per the charge-sheet is
that the arms and ammunitions were recovered in presence of
the appellant from the flat therefore, the allegation as
surfaced against said co-accused cannot be said to be
identical with the case of the appellant, rather, the case of the
appellant is similar to that of Akash Kumar Roy as would be
evident from the material surfaced in course of investigation
as referred in paragraph 17.23, 17.24, 17.26 and 17.36 of the
2nd supplementary chargesheet.
23. It is further stated that the bail of several other co-
accused has also been rejected by this Hon'ble Court in Cr.
Appl.(DB) No. 133 of 2023 vide order dated 17.05.2023 (Ajay
Turi vs. N.I.A.), Cr. Appl.(DB) No. 549 of 2023 vide order
dated 08.09.2023 (Babulal Turi vs. N.I.A.), Cr. Appl. (DB)
No.781 of 2023 vide order dated 15.02.2024 (Pradip Ganjhu
vs. N.I.A.), Cr. Appl.(DB) No. 744 of 2023 vide order dated
28.02.2024 (Vikash Anand vs. N.I.A.), Cr. Appl.(DB) No. 840
2026:JHHC:6421-DB
of 2025 vide order dated 23.09.2025 (Ajay Turi vs. N.I.A.), Cr.
Appl.(DB) No. 781 of 2025 vide order dated 13.10.2025 (Ajay
Turi vs. N.I.A.), Cr. Appl.(DB) No. 818 of 2025 vide order
dated 04.11.2025 (Babulal Turi vs. N.I.A.), Cr. Appl. (DB) No.
976 of 2025 vide order dated 21.11.2025 (Saif Ansari vs.
N.I.A.) and Cr. Appl. (DB) No. 448 of 2025 vide order dated
01.12.2025 (Shankar Yadav vs. N.I.A.).
24. So far delay in trial is concerned, it has been contended
that the Hon'ble Supreme Court recently in the case of
Gurwinder Singh Versus State of Punjab and Another
(2024 SCC OnLine SC 109) has held that for the offences
under UAPA "Bail will be an exception and Jail will be the
rule" and merely period of custody and delay in trial will not
be a ground for grant for bail.
25. So far as likelihood of delay in the trial due to long list of
witnesses, the submission has been made on behalf of NIA
that number of witnesses has already been pruned, and 26
witnesses have already been examined as such the plea of the
petitioner about the probable delay in the trial is not fit to be
accepted.
26. Learned counsel for the respondent has emphatically
submitted that the case is at advanced stage, as substantial
number of prosecution witnesses i.e., 26 in number has
already been examined and if at this stage the appellant
2026:JHHC:6421-DB
would be enlarged on bail, there is every likelihood of
influencing the witnesses and tampering with the evidence or
may abscond, which would seriously prejudice the fair
conduct of the trial.
27. It has further been submitted that the present
appellant/accused (A-28) had earlier approached this Hon'ble
Court seeking identical relief in Cr. Appl. (DB) No. 298 of
2023, and this Hon'ble Court, vide order dated 30.06.2023,
was pleased to dismiss the said application, having been
satisfied that a prima facie true case exists against the
appellant/accused Kundan Kumar (A-28), and since herein
there is no change in circumstances either on fact or law,
therefore prayer for appellant is not fit to be accepted.
28. Mr. Das, in the aforesaid premise, has submitted that the
impugned order dated 20.09.2025 may not be interfered with.
Analysis
29. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused
the documents available on record as also the finding
recorded by learned court as recorded in the impugned order
dated 20.09.2025.
30. It would be evident from the prosecution version that on
18.12.2020 a case being Balumath P.S. Case No. 234/2020
was instituted on information received at the Balumath Police
Station against the unknown persons leveling therein the
2026:JHHC:6421-DB
charge of burning vehicles and firing indiscriminately near
Check Post No.1 near Tetariakhand Colliery. The miscreants
fired on the police party that had rushed to the spot. Accused
persons had burnt four trucks one motorcycle and also
injured 04 civilians. From the place of occurrence, remnants
of the burnt vehicles, fragments of a cane bomb with wire, a
white colour empty gallon of approx 02 liters, spent cartridges
and three hand written pamphlets containing threats to the
transporters and coal companies, involved in the mining area
signed by one Pradip Ganjhu were found from the spot. The
Police, on enquiry found that Sujit Sinha and Aman Sahu
@Aman Sao had conspired with accused Pradeep Ganjhu and
his associates namely Santosh Ganjhu, Bihari Ganjhu,
Sakendra Ganjhu, Pramod Ganjhu and others to collect
extortion from CCL transporters, contractors, DO holders and
disruption of legitimate works.
31. Based on the aforesaid allegation, Balumath P.S. case no
234/2020 dated 19.12.2020 was instituted for the offence
under Sections 147, 148, 149, 353, 504, 506, 307, 427, 435,
386, 387 and 120B of IPC section 27 of Arms Act, Section
3/4 of the Explosive Substance Act, against accused persons.
32. The Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India
directed the NIA to take up the investigation of the Balumath
P.S. case no 234/2020 dated 19.12.2020 which was re-
2026:JHHC:6421-DB
registered case no 01/2021/NIA-RNC and consequently 2nd
supplementary Chargesheet was submitted against the
present appellant arraigned him as accused No.28.
33. It has come in the investigation that the present
appellant was a member of Aman Sahu and Sujit Sinha Gang
and in furtherance of the criminal conspiracy, he was
associated with Akash Kumar Roy @ Monu, the then
absconding accused Shahrukh Ansari and provided harbour
to him. The investigation has also revealed that, the appellant
/accused Kundan Kumar (A-28) also received arms and
ammunitions from the accused Vikash Anand Ojha @
Abhishek and further provided into the gang members.
34. The appellant has been apprehended and taken into
custody on 19.07.2021, and accordingly, prayer for bail was
made before Special Judge NIA Ranchi by filing Misc. Cr.
Application No. 2362 of 2024 but the same has been rejected
vide order dated 28.01.2023 against which the Cr. Appeal
(DB) No.298 of 2023 was preferred before this Court, which
was dismissed after due consideration of all factual aspects
on merit vide order dated 30.06.2023. For ready reference
the relevant paragraphs of the aforesaid order i.e. order dated
30.06.2023 are being referred as under:
9. This Court is now proceeding to consider the legality and
propriety of the impugned order by taking together the material
which has been revealed in course of investigation against the
appellant.
2026:JHHC:6421-DB
The extract of the supplementary chargesheet is part of the
counter affidavit as appended as Annexure-A. It appears from
paragraph 17.23 that it has come on record that Vikash Anand
Ojha @ Abhishek (A-26) from January/February, 2021 to July,
2021, received multiple consignments of arms and ammunition
from MP and Maharashtra and provided to Akash Kumar Roy @
Monu (A27), Kundan Kumar (A-28) and others in the name of
Abhishek. Akash Kumar Roy @ Monu (A-27), Kundan Kumar (A-
28) further provided these arms and ammunition to Shahrukh
Ansari, the then absconding accused and other gang members.
Vikash Anand Ojha @ Abhishek (A-26) was arrested by a team of
Special Cell, Delhi Police from Chopda, Maharashtra.
It has further been revealed as has been referred under
paragraph 17.24 of the supplementary chargesheet that Akash
Kumar Roy @ Monu (A-27), Kundan Kumar (A-28) also arranged a
flat at Namkum (Ranchi) for the criminal activities of the terrorist
gang. Both of them facilitated safe stay/harbor to Shahrukh
Ansari, the then absconding accused in the instant case in the
said flat at Namkum, Ranchi. In this flat, accused Vikash Anand
Ojha @ Abhishek (A-26) visited the said flat at Nankum, Ranchi
and supplied arms and ammunition during his visit in June/July
2021. On 19.07.2021 this flat was raided by Police of PS Namkum
and arrested Kundan Kumar (A-28) with the arms and
ammunition supplied by Vikash Anand Ojha @ Abhishek(A26).
Shahrukh Ansari and Akash Kumar Roy @ Monu(A-27) managed
to escape from this flat. A separate case no.187/2021,dated
19.07.2021 was registered by Namkum Police against Akash
Kumar Roy @ Monu (A-27), Kundan (A28) and others.
It appears from Paragraph 17.26 that Kundan Kumar (A-28)
received Shahrukh Ansari from Ratu Talab, Ratu in Ranchi and
brought him at Namkum flat for facilitating his safe stay/harbor
for further criminal activities. Kundan Kumar (A-28) was tasked to
supply arms and ammunition to the Sujit Sinha and Aman Sahu
gang.
The investigation further revealed as has been referred at
paragraph 17.36 wherein the complicity of Kundan Kumar (A-28)
has been referred who has been seen with Akash Kumar Roy @
Monu. It has also come that during the photo identification
2026:JHHC:6421-DB
proceeding in presence of independent witnesses, protected
witness "C" identified the photograph of Vikash Anand Ojha @
Abhishek (A-26) and stated that in the month of June/July 2021,
he saw him with Akash Kumar Roy @ Monu Roy (A-27) and
Kundan Kumar (A-28) in the said flat. He has also corroborated
the fact that he saw him before the raid by Namkum Police in the
flat, this person was also present in the said flat in Namkum with
Akash Kumar Roy @ Monu Roy (A-27) and Kundan Kumar (A-28).
Paragraph 17.23, 17.24, 17.26 and 17.36 are quoted hereunder
as :-
"17.23 During the investigation, it has come on record that
Vikash Anand Ojha @ Abhishek (A-26) from
January/February, 2021 to July, 2021, received multiple
consignments of arms and ammunition from MP and
Maharashtra and provided to Akash Kumar Roy @ Monu (A-
27), Kundan Kumar (A-28) and others in the name of
Abhishek. Akash Kumar Roy @ Monu (A-27). Kundan Kumar
(A-28) further provided these arms and ammunition to
Shahrukh Ansari, the then absconding accused and other
gang members. Vikash Anand Ojha @ Abhishek (A-26) was
arrested by a team of Special Cell, Delhi Police from Chopda,
Maharashtra in its case No. 225 of 2021 dated 26.08.2021
having in possession 20 semiautomatic/country made
pistols, 50 live rounds, One Xiaomi smart phone alongwith
02 Airtel Sim cards.
17.24 Investigation has revealed that Akash Kumar Roy @
Monu (A-27), Kundan kumar (A-28) also arranged a flat at
Namkum (Ranchi) for the criminal activities of the terrorist
gang. Both of them facilitated safe stay/harbor to Shahrukh
Ansari, the then absconding accused in the instant case in
the said flat at Namkum, Ranchi. In this flat, accused Vikash
Anand Ojha @ Abhishek (A-26) visited the said flat at
Nankum, Ranchi and supplied arms and ammunition during
his visit in June/July 2021. On 19.07.2021 this flat was
raided by Police of PS Namkum and arrested Kundan Kumar
(A-28) with the arms and ammunition supplied by Vikash
Anand Ojha @ Abhishek (A-26). Shahrukh Ansari and Akash
Kumar Roy @ Monu (A-27) managed to escape from this flat.
2026:JHHC:6421-DB
A separate case no.187/2021, dated 19.07.2021 was
registered by Namkum Police against Akash Kumar Roy @
Monu (A-27), Kundan (A-28) and others.
17.26 During investigation, it has come on record that
Kundan Kumar (A-28) received Shahrukh Ansari from Ratu
Talab, Ratu in Ranchi and brought him at Namkum flat for
facilitating his safe stay/harbor for further criminal activities.
Kundan Kumar (A-28) was tasked to supply arms and
ammunition to the Sujit Sinha and Aman Sahu gang.
17.36 During investigation, it has come on record that
Protected witness "C" stated that Akash Kumar Roy a Monu
Roy (A-27) and Kundan Kumar (A-28) arranged a flat at
Namkum, Ranchion forged ID proof. He saw other persons
with Akash Kumar Roy @Monu Roy (A27) and Kundan
Kumar (A-28) at this flat During, the photo identification
proceeding in presence of independent witnesses, protected
witness "C" identified the photograph of Vikash Anand Ojha
@ Abhishek (A26) and stated that in the month of June/July
2021, he saw him with Akash Kumar Roy @ Monu Roy (A-27)
and Kundan Kumar (A-28)in the said flat. He also identified
the photograph of Shahrukh Ansari and stated that he saw
him before the raid by Namkum Police in this flat, this person
was also present at the said flat in Namkum with Akash
Kumar Roy Monu Roy (A-27) and Kundan Kumar (A-28)."
The supplementary chargesheet, thus, corroborates the fact
about incriminating materials having been found by the
investigating agency in course of investigation against the
appellant.
12. This Court, on the basis of the aforesaid position of law as has
been settled by Hon'ble Apex Court, is proceeding to examine as to
whether the accusation is prima facie true as compared to the
opinion of accused not guilty by taking into consideration the
material collected in course of investigation by the NIA.
This Court, therefore, is now required to consider as to
whether after following the principle laid down under Section
43D(5) of the UA(P) Act, 1967, the case of the appellant can be
said to be identical to that of Santosh Kumar @ Banti Yadav or
2026:JHHC:6421-DB
similar to that of the case of Akash Kumar Roy, the appellant in
Criminal Appeal (DB) No.1238 of 2022.
The chargesheet reflects as also the order dated 09.11.2022
passed in Criminal Appeal (DB) No.98 of 2022 in favour of
Santosh Kumar @ Banti Yadav wherein the Coordinate Bench
while granting privilege of bail has considered the nature of
allegation against the appellant of the said case of harbouring the
terrorist, on that ground the privilege of bail was granted along
with the ground that Santosh Kumar @ Banti Yadav is
languishing in judicial custody since long.
But, when the supplementary chargesheet has been
examined by this Court in order to assess as has been contended
on behalf of the NIA that the case of the appellant is similar to that
of accused Akash Kumar Roy by which this Court is in agreement
with such submission by going through the incriminating material
collected in course of investigation mentioned in paragraph 17.23,
17.24, 17.26 and 17.36 of the supplementary chargesheet, as
quoted and referred hereinabove. The complicity which has been
found of the appellant is similar to that of the accused Akash
Kumar Roy since the appellant was found to be along Akash
Kumar Roy from January/February, 2021 to July, 2021, the
period in which multiple consignments of arms and ammunitions
from MP and Maharashtra were received and provided to Akash
Kumar Roy @ Monu (A-27) and Kundan Kumar (A-28), the
appellant of the instant appeal.
It has also come in the aforesaid paragraph that Akash Kumar
Roy @ Monu (A-27) and Kundan Kumar (A-28) also arranged a flat
at Namkum (Ranchi) for the criminal activities of the terrorist gang
and both of them facilitated safe stay/harbor to Shahrukh Ansari.
The aforesaid flat was raided by the Namkum Policy on
19.07.2021 and from the spot the appellant was apprehended
with the arms and ammunitions supplied by Vikash Anand Ojha.
It has come under paragraph 17.36 that the protected witness
"C" stated that Akash Kumar Roy @ Monu Roy (A-27) and Kundan
Kumar (A-28) arranged a flat in Namkum, Ranchi on the basis of
forged I/D proof. He saw other persons with Akash Kumar Roy
@Monu Roy (A-27) and Kundan Kumar (A-28) at this flat During,
the photo identification proceeding in presence of independent
2026:JHHC:6421-DB
witnesses, protected witness "C" identified the photograph of
Vikash Anand Ojha @ Abhishek (A-26) and stated that in the
month of June/July 2021, he saw him with Akash Kumar Roy @
Monu Roy (A-27) and Kundan Kumar (A-28)in the said flat. He
also identified the photograph of Shahrukh Ansari and stated that
he saw him before the raid by Namkum Police in this flat, this
person was also present at the said flat in Namkum with Akash
Kumar Roy Monu Roy (A-27) and Kundan Kumar (A-28).
Therefore, from the material which has come in course of
investigation basis upon which the supplementary chargesheet
has been submitted, it would be evident that the complicity of the
appellant is similar to that of Akash Kumar Roy.
The complicity of the other appellant who has been directed
to be released on bail, i.e., Santosh Kumar @ Banti Yadav, there is
no allegation of receiving arms and ammunitions in huge quantity
against him. However, he was alleged with the harbouring of
Shahrukh Ansari.
It further appears from the order dated 09.11.2022 passed in
Criminal Appeal (DB) No.98 of 2022 wherein the period of custody
has also been taken into consideration and the plea of custody of
the appellant has also been made a ground.
12. The question will be as to whether in the matter of NIA
keeping the mandate of Section 43D(5) of the UA(P) Act, the period
of custody can be a ground to release on bail but we are not
making any remark upon the said order, since we are not sitting
in appeal of the said order but the same is being referred herein
on the ground that the appellant of this case is also languishing in
judicial custody and that ground has been taken for the purpose
of making out a case for release on bail.
14. This Court, therefore, by taking into consideration the
interpretation of the provision of Section 43D(5) of the UA(P) Act,
1967, is of the view that the custody has not been 23 mandated to
be a ground for bail, rather, the requirement to see the basis of
accusation in the F.I.R., the contents of the case diary including
the chargesheet and other material gather by investigating
agency.
15. This Court, in the aforesaid premise of the settled position, is
of the view that the custody cannot be a ground to release the
2026:JHHC:6421-DB
accused on bail, rather, it is the accusation made in the F.I.R.,
contents of the case diary and the material gathered in the
chargesheet is of prima consideration.
16. This Court, on the basis of the aforesaid consideration, is of
the view that herein also the specific involvement of the appellant
has been surfaced, as would appear from paragraphs 17.23,
17.24, 17.26 and 17.36 of the supplementary chargesheet, as
quoted and referred hereinabove. This Court, after going through
the imputation of allegation levelled against Santosh Kumar @
Banti Yadav visà-vis Akash Kumar Roy, is of the view that the
case of the appellant is identical to that of the case of Akash
Kumar Roy in view of the allegation as surfaced under
paragraphs 17.23, 17.24, 17.26 and 17.36 of the supplementary
chargesheet.
17. This Court, on the basis of the consideration of the material
collected in the supplementary chargesheet, is of the view that the
accusation made against the accused concerned is prima facie
true. 24 So far as the case of Santosh Kumar @ Banti Yadav is
concerned, against whom the allegation of harbouring the terrorist
is there, therefore, the case of the appellant is not identical to that
of the Santosh Kumar @ Banti Yadav, rather, the case of the
appellant is identical to the case of Akash Kumar Roy. The
Coordinate Bench of this Court has already rejected the prayer for
bail of Akash Kumar Roy, therefore, the instant appeal also
deserves to be rejected since we are not prima facie satisfied that
it is a case where the privilege of bail is to be granted in favour of
the appellant as per the discussion made hereinabove.
18. This Court, on the basis of the reason assigned hereinabove,
is of the view that the order impugned suffers from no infirmity.
19. Accordingly, the instant appeal fails and is dismissed.
35. From the perusal of the aforementioned paragraphs of
the order dated 30.06.2023 it is evident that this Court has
already considered all the pleas of the present
appellant/accused Kundan Kumar (A-28) while rejecting his
earlier bail application and made out a prima facie case in
2026:JHHC:6421-DB
terms of Section 43D (5) of U.A.P. Act 1967. It is further
evident from aforesaid order that this Court while rejecting
the prayer of the present appellant has taken settled
proposition of law as rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court and
has also considered the statutory mandate of the UAP Act
1967 and has also taken into consideration the issue of parity
and thereafter observed that the case of the appellant is not
identical to that of the Santosh Kumar @ Banti Yadav, rather,
the case of the appellant is identical to the case of Akash
Kumar Roy and the Coordinate Bench of this Court has
already rejected the prayer for bail of Akash Kumar Roy.
36. Thereafter, again Misc. Cr. Application No. 1738 of 2025
has been filed by the appellant before the learned Special
Judge, NIA Ranchi which has been dismissed vide order
dated 20.09.2025, against which the present appeal has been
preferred.
37. Since no fresh ground or change in circumstance is
available herein therefore, the learned counsel for appellant
has taken the ground of long custody i.e. about 4 years and 7
months approximately and probable delay in conclusion of
trial has also been taken as one of the grounds. The learned
counsel for the appellant has also raised the issue of parity
and submitted that since other co-accused have been granted
2026:JHHC:6421-DB
bail therefore the appellant herein also deserves to be
released on bail by interfering with the order impugned.
38. While on the other hand, learned counsel appearing for
the respondent has argued that ample evidence has been
collected in course of investigation as would appear from
paragraph 17.23, 17.24, 17.26 and 17.36 of the 2nd
supplementary charge-sheet wherefrom it is evident that
apart from harbouring the terrorist, huge quantity of arms
and ammunitions were recovered from the flat in presence of
the appellant and from the spot the appellant has been
arrested. The ground, therefore, has been agitated that the
case of the appellant is not identical to the said co-accused
against whom parity has been claimed rather herein apart
from harbouring the terrorist, huge quantity of arms and
ammunitions were also recovered from the flat in presence of
the appellant from where he has been apprehended.
39. The ground has also been taken that the case of the
appellant is similar to that of accused Akash Kumar Roy
whose bail application has already been rejected, against
whom the allegation is similar to that of the appellant as
would appear from paragraph 17.23, 17.24 and 17.36 of the
charge-sheet. Further ground has been taken that list of
witnesses has already been pruned and 26 witnesses have
already been examined, therefore, submission has been made
2026:JHHC:6421-DB
that if at this stage, bail would be granted there is every
likelihood of misusing the same.
40. Adverting to the contention of the learned counsel for the
parties, admittedly herein earlier the prayer of the appellant
for bail has already been rejected on merit therefore, the
present appeal has been filed on the ground of period of
custody and probable delay in trial and in addition thereto
ground of parity has also been raised.
41. In the aforesaid backdrop it requires to refer herein that
the statutory mandate contained under Section 43D(5) of the
UA(P) Act 1967 imposes a stringent embargo upon the release
of an accused charged with such grave offences on bail,
unless the twin conditions stipulated therein are satisfied.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gurwinder Singh (supra),
wherein after considering the judgment in Union of India v.
Κ.Α. Najeeb (supra), it was reiterated that the statutory
parameters contained in Section 43D(5) of the UA(P) Act 1967
must be applied while considering bail in cases involving
serious offences under the Act. It has been held that only
where the allegations are found to be prima facie untrue, on
the basis of the material collected during investigation, can
the prayer for bail be considered, and conversely, where the
allegations appear prima facie true, the privilege of bail
cannot be extended.
2026:JHHC:6421-DB
42. In the present case, it is apparent from the
appellant/accused Kundan Kumar (A-28) has been charge-
sheeted for offences punishable under Sections of the
UA(P)Act 1967, having maximum punishment of
imprisonment for life.
43. Although, the culpability of the present
accused/appellant has already been dealt with by this Court
in order dated 30.06.2023 but at the cost of repetition same
has been reiterated herein in precise form. It has come in the
2nd supplementary charge-sheet that the appellant /accused
Kundan Kumar (A-28) was a member of Aman Sahu and Sujit
Sinha Gang and in furtherance of the criminal conspiracy, he
was associated with Akash Kumar Roy @ Monu, the then
absconding accused Shahrukh Ansari and provided harbour
to him. During the course of investigation, it has been
revealed that accused Akash Kumar Roy @ Monu (A-27),
appellant / accused Kundan Kumar (A-28) has arranged a
flat at Namkum (Ranchi) for the criminal activities of the
terrorist gang. Both of them facilitated safe stay/harbour to
Shahrukh Ansari, the then absconding accused in the instant
case in the said flat at Namkum, Ranchi. In this flat, accused
Vikash Anand Ojha @ Abhishek(A-26) visited the said flat at
Namkum, Ranchi and supplied arms and ammunition during
his visit in June/July 2021.
2026:JHHC:6421-DB
44. On 19.07.2021, this flat was raided by Police of P.S.
Namkum and arrested appellant/accused Kundan Kumar (A-
28) with the arms and ammunition supplied by Vikash Anand
Ojha @ Abhishek(A-26). Shahrukh Ansari and Akash Kumar
Roy @ Monu(A-27) managed to escape from this flat. A
separate case no.187/2021, dated 19.07.2021 was registered
by Namkum Police against Akash Kumar Roy @ Monu and (A-
27), appellant / accused Kundan Kumar (A-28) others.
During the course of further investigation, it has been
revealed that appellant / accused Kundan Kumar (A-28),
received Shahrukh Ansari from Ratu Talab, Ranchi and
brought him at his Namkum Flat for facilitating his stay safe/
harbour for further criminal activities. The present appellant/
accused Kundan Kumar (A-28), was tasked to supply arms
and ammunitions to Sujit Sinha and Aman Sahu Gang.
45. Further from the order dated 30.06.2023 it is evident
that this Court has already considered all the pleas of the
appellant/accused Kundan Kumar (A-28) while rejecting his
earlier bail application had found that a prima facie case is
made out in terms U.A.P. Act 1967 against the present
appellant. It needs to refer herein that the principles of res
judicata and such analogous principles although are not
applicable in a criminal proceeding, but the courts are bound
by the doctrine of judicial discipline and the findings of a
2026:JHHC:6421-DB
higher court or a coordinate bench must receive serious
consideration at the hands of the court entertaining a bail
application at a later stage when the same had been rejected
earlier. In such an event, the courts must give due weight to
the grounds which weighed with the former or higher court in
rejecting the bail application.
46. Herein there is no material change in the fact situation so
far the culpability of the present appellant is concerned but
ground of custody and delay in trial as also issue of parity
has been raised.
47. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to refer herein
that only the long incarceration or delay in trial is not the
ground to be looked into for enlarging the accused on bail,
rather, the accusation so made against the accused persons
as also societal impact is also to be taken care of.
48. It requires to refer herein that the Hon'ble Apex Court in
the case of Gurwinder Singh v. State of Punjab(supra)
taking into consideration the ratio of judgment of Union of
India vs. K.A. Najeeb, (supra) has observed that mere delay
in trial pertaining to grave offences as one involved in the
instant case cannot be used as a ground to grant bail, for
ready reference, the relevant paragraph is being quoted as
under:
"46. As already discussed, the material available on record
indicates the involvement of the appellant in furtherance of
2026:JHHC:6421-DB
terrorist activities backed by members of banned terrorist
organisation involving exchange of large quantum of money
through different channels which needs to be deciphered and
therefore in such a scenario if the appellant is released on bail
there is every likelihood that he will influence the key witnesses
of the case which might hamper the process of justice. Therefore,
mere delay in trial pertaining to grave offences as one involved in
the instant case cannot be used as a ground to grant bail. Hence,
the aforesaid argument on behalf of the appellant cannot be
accepted."
49. The Hon'ble Apex Court in its recent judgment in the
case of Gulfisha Fatima versus State (Govt. of NCT of
Delhi) 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1 while appreciating the
implication of Article 21 vis-vis Section 43D (5) of the Act
1967 and taking into the consideration the ratio laid down
in the case of Gurwinder Singh v. State of Punjab (supra)
has categorically observed that if prosecutions alleging
offences which implicate the sovereignty, integrity, or security
of the State, delay does not operate as a trump card that
automatically displaces statutory restraint, for ready
reference, the relevant paragraphs of the aforesaid judgment
are being quoted as under:
"32. In Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb2, this Court
recognised a constitutional safeguard that cannot be
ignored: statutory restrictions cannot be applied so as to
render the guarantee of personal liberty illusory. It was
held that where the trial is not likely to commence or
conclude within a reasonable period, constitutional courts
retain the jurisdiction to grant bail notwithstanding
statutory restraints. The decision thus operates as a
2026:JHHC:6421-DB
protection against unconscionable detention and there
can be no second opinion on the said principle.
33. The same decision, however, does not indicate as
laying down a mechanical rule under which the mere
passage of time becomes determinative in every case
arising under a special statute. The jurisprudence of this
Court does not support a construction whereby delay
simpliciter eclipses a statutory regime enacted by
Parliament to address offences of a special category.
35. The proper constitutional question, therefore, is not
whether Article 21 is superior to Section 43D (5). The
proper question is how Article 21 is to be applied where
Parliament has expressly conditioned the grant of bail in
relation to offences alleged to implicate national security.
The law does not contemplate an either-or approach. Nor
does it contemplate an unstructured blending of statutory
and constitutional considerations. What is required is
disciplined judicial scrutiny that gives due regard to both.
47. A closely allied consideration is the role attributed to
the accused. Prosecutions under the UAPA may allege
varying degrees of participation, ranging from peripheral
acts to strategic, organisational, or ideological centrality.
The constitutional significance of prolonged incarceration
cannot be assessed uniformly for all accused regardless
of role. Where the attribution suggests a central or
organising role in the alleged design, the need for
circumspection before constitutional intervention
displaces a statutory embargo is correspondingly greater.
Conversely, where the role is peripheral or episodic,
prolonged incarceration may more readily assume a
punitive character.
56. It therefore becomes necessary to state, with clarity,
the governing approach. In prosecutions alleging offences
which implicate the sovereignty, integrity, or security of
the State, delay does not operate as a trump card that
automatically displaces statutory restraint. Rather, delay
serves as a trigger for heightened judicial scrutiny. The
2026:JHHC:6421-DB
outcome of such scrutiny must be determined by a
proportional and contextual balancing of legally relevant
considerations, including (i) the gravity and statutory
character of the offence alleged, (ii) the role attributed to
the accused within the alleged design or conspiracy, (iii)
the strength of the prima facie case as it emerges at the
limited threshold contemplated under the special statute,
and (iv) the 2026:JHHC:2958-DB extent to which
continued incarceration, viewed cumulatively in the facts
of the case, has become demonstrably disproportionate
so as to offend the guarantee of personal liberty
under Article 21.
58. In Gurwinder Singh v. State of Punjab, this Court
expressly cautioned against the mechanical invocation of
prolonged incarceration as a ground for bail in cases
involving serious offences under special enactments. The
judgment reiterates that the gravity of the offence, the
legislative context, and the prima facie material on record
cannot be eclipsed merely because the trial has taken
time.
59. This Court in CBI v. Dayamoy Mahato reiterated
that while Article 21 remains paramount, it does not
operate in a vacuum divorced from competing
constitutional interests. The Court emphasized that
claims to liberty must be examined in the totality of
circumstances, particularly where allegations implicate
organised criminality or matters of public interest. Delay,
though undoubtedly significant, was held not to assume
the character of an absolute or solitary determinant. The
emphasis, once again, was on structured judicial
reasoning rather than on formulaic outcomes."
50. Thus, on the basis of the aforesaid settled position of law,
it is evident that mere delay in trial pertaining to grave
offences, as one involved in the instant case, cannot be used
as a ground to grant bail.
2026:JHHC:6421-DB
51. There is no dispute and it cannot be disputed that the
jurisprudence of Article 21 has, as it develops, recognised
various facets to be intrinsic to the right to life and liberty
such as speedy trial, timely completion of investigation, fair
trial etc. but at the same time circumspection in granting the
relief of bail in offences that harmful to socity such as in this
case, stems from a place of concern, understandably
legitimate at that, about public order, societal security,
overall peace and the general deterrent force in criminal law.
52. The scales of justice must balance on the one hand-the
constitutionally consecrated and jealously guarded right
under Article 21 and on the other, the recognition that
individual liberty is not absolute and is subject to just
exceptions i.e. the paramount considerations of national
interest and societal interest.
53. There can be no manner of doubt on the proposition
that Article 21 rights are placed on a pedestal, and rightly so,
at the same time, though, the individual cannot always be the
centre of attention. We observe, therefore, that while Article
21 rights must always be protected, but however, in cases
where the security of the society and nation is called into
question, the long incarceration cannot be the sole ground of
consideration.
2026:JHHC:6421-DB
54. The act of the accused persons must be looked at, on the
whole, and all relevant factors must be given due
consideration while granting or denying bail. Needless to add,
any Court seized of bail application(s) arising out of such
offences must record, in their order the reasons and factors
that weighed with them in the ultimate outcome.
55. In view of the discussion made above it is the settled fact
that the rights of an individual are always subservient to the
nation/societal interest.
56. Further, in the case of Gurwinder Singh vs. State of
Punjab (supra) and in the case of the Union of India vs.
Barakathullah etc., reported in 2024 INSC 452, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has expressed its concern to the
threat raised by terrorist organizations and held that where
the accusations against the respondents are prima facie true,
the mandate contained in the proviso to Section 43D(5) of the
UA(P) Act would become applicable and the accused would
not be released on bail.
57. Herein, the learned counsel for the respondent NIA has
submitted at Bar that in the instant case number of
witnesses which were 345 in numbers has already been
pruned to 129, out of which, 26 witnesses have already been
examined, therefore taking into consideration the aforesaid
2026:JHHC:6421-DB
submission, the apprehension of appellant in probable delay
in trial is not fit to be accepted.
58. Further from paragraph 13 of the counter affidavit it has
been mentioned by the prosecuting agency that if the present
appellant is allowed to be released on bail, then, he will get all
opportunities to tamper with the evidence as well as influence
the witnesses or he may abscond, for ready reference the
relevant paragraph of the counter affidavit is being quoted as
under:
"13.That it is stated that if the appellant is released on bail,
there are all probabilities that he may influence the
witnesses, tamper with the evidences or may be abscond,
which may cause serious prejudice to the trial."
59. Further, there is serious allegation against the
appellant/accused Kundan Kumar (A-28) that he was a
member of Aman Sahu and Sujit Sinha Gang and in
furtherance of the criminal conspiracy, he was associated
with Akash Kumar Roy @ Monu, the then absconding
accused Shahrukh Ansari and provided harbour to him. The
investigation has also revealed that, the appellant/accused
Kundan Kumar (A-28) also received arms and ammunitions
from the accused Vikash Anand Ojha @ Abhishek and further
provided into the gang members.
60. Thus, on the basis of discussion made hereinabove, the
contention of learned counsel for the appellant that appellant
2026:JHHC:6421-DB
is eligible for bail on the ground of custody or delay in trial, is
not fit to be accepted.
61. Further, the learned counsel for the appellant has raised
the issue of parity and has submitted that the other co-
accused persons who are similarly placed have already been
directed to be release on bail, therefore the prayer of the
petitioner is fit to be accepted.
62. It has been averred in the memo of appeal that the co
accused person, namely, Santosh Kumar @ Banti Yadav, has
been granted the privilege of regular bail vide order dated
09.11.2022 passed in Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 98 of 2022,
and another co accused person, namely, Pritam Kumar @
Chiku Yadav @ Chiku, has been granted the privilege of bail
vide order dated 22.12.2022 passed in Criminal Appeal (D.B.)
No. 205 of 2022, and another co accused persons, namely,
Jasim Ansari and Wasim Ansari, have been granted the
privilege of bail vide order dated 03.01.2023 passed in
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 435 of 2022, and another co
accused person, namely, Jahiruddin Ansari, has been
granted the privilege of regular bail vide order dated
03.01.2023 passed in Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 51 of 2022,
and another co accused, namely, Santosh Yadav @ Santosh
Kumar Yadav, has been granted the privilege of regular bail
vide order dated 18.01.2023 passed in Criminal Appeal (D.B.)
2026:JHHC:6421-DB
No.204 of 2022, and another co accused, namely, Prabhat
Kumar Yadav @ Dimple Yadav @Prabhat Kumar, has been
granted the privilege of regular bail vide order dated
05.03.2025 passed in Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 1412 of
2023, and the case of the appellant is similar to that of the
case aforementioned co-accused.
63. It is evident from aforesaid that except co-accused
Prabhat Kumar Yadav @ Dimple Yadav @Prabhat Kumar, who
has been granted bail vide order dated 05.03.2025 passed in
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 1412 of 2023, all the aforesaid co-
accused persons were granted bail before the passing of order
dated 30.06.2023 by which the prayer for bail of the present
appellant has been rejected.
64. It has been contended by the NIA that the allegation as
per charge-sheet is that the arms and ammunitions were
recovered in presence of the appellant from the flat, therefore,
the allegation as surfaced against said co-accused cannot be
said to be identical with the case of the appellant, rather, the
case of the appellant is similar to that of Akash Kumar Roy as
would be evident from the material surfaced in course of
investigation as referred in paragraph 17.23, 17.24, 17.26
and 17.36 of the 2nd supplementary charge-sheet and the
prayer for bail of the said co-accused i.e. Akash Kumar Roy
2026:JHHC:6421-DB
has already been rejected by the Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court.
65. The learned counsel for NIA has further submitted that
the bail of several co-accused has also been rejected by this
Hon'ble Court in Cr. Appl.(DB) No. 133 of 2023 vide order
dated 17.05.2023 (Ajay Turi vs. N.I.A.), Cr. Appl.(DB) No. 549
of 2023 vide order dated 08.09.2023 (Babulal Turi vs. N.I.A.),
Cr. Appl. (DB) No.781 of 2023 vide order dated 15.02.2024
(Pradip Ganjhu vs. N.I.A.), Cr. Appl.(DB) No. 744 of 2023 vide
order dated 28.02.2024 (Vikash Anand vs. N.I.A.), Cr.
Appl.(DB) No. 840 of 2025 vide order dated 23.09.2025)(Ajay
Turi vs. N.I.A.), Cr. Appl.(DB) No. 781 of 2025 vide order
dated 13.10.2025 (Ajay Turi vs. N.I.A.), Cr. Appl.(DB) No. 818
of 2025 vide order dated 04.11.2025 (Babulal Turi vs. N.I.A.),
Cr. Appl. (DB) No. 976 of 2025 vide order dated 21.11.2025
(Saif Ansari vs. N.I.A.) and Cr. Appl. (DB) No. 448 of 2025
vide order dated 01.12.2025 (Shankar Yadav vs. N.I.A.).
66. It needs to refer herein that the law is well settled that
the principle of parity is to be applied if the case of the fact is
exactly similar, then, only the principle of parity will be
applied in the matter of passing order but if there is
difference in between the facts, then, the principle of parity, is
not to be applied.
2026:JHHC:6421-DB
67. It is further settled connotation of law that Court cannot
exercise its powers in a capricious manner and has to
consider the totality of circumstances before granting bail
and by only simply saying that another accused has been
granted bail, is not sufficient to determine whether a case for
grant of bail on the basis of parity has been established.
68. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Tarun Kumar
Versus Assistant Director Directorate of Enforcement,
reported in (2023) SCC OnLine SC 1486 has observed that
parity is not the law and while applying the principle of
parity, the Court is required to focus upon the role attached
to the accused whose application is under consideration.
69. It is further settled connotation of law that Court cannot
exercise its powers in a capricious manner and has to
consider the totality of circumstances before granting bail
and by simply saying that another accused has been granted
bail is not sufficient to determine whether a case for grant of
bail on the basis of parity has been established. Reference in
this regard may be made to the judgment rendered by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in Ramesh Bhavan Rathod vs.
Vishanbhai Hirabhai Makwana, (2021) 6 SCC 230
wherein it has been held as under:
"25. We are constrained to observe that the orders passed by
the High Court granting bail fail to pass muster under the law.
They are oblivious to, and innocent of, the nature and gravity
of the alleged offences and to the severity of the punishment
2026:JHHC:6421-DB
in the event of conviction. In Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P.
[Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P., (2014) 16 SCC 508 : (2015) 3
SCC (Cri) 527], this Court has held that while applying the
principle of parity, the High Court cannot exercise its powers
in a capricious manner and has to consider the totality of
circumstances before granting bail. This Court observed :(SCC
p. 515, para 17)
"17. Coming to the case at hand, it is found that when a stand
was taken that the second respondent was a history sheeter,
it was imperative on the part of the High Court to scrutinise
every aspect and not capriciously record that the second
respondent is entitled to be admitted to bail on the ground of
parity. It can be stated with absolute certitude that it was not
a case of parity and, therefore, the impugned order [Mitthan
Yadav v. State of U.P., 2014 SCC OnLine All 16031] clearly
exposes the non application of mind. That apart, as a matter
of fact it has been brought on record that the second
respondent has been charge-sheeted in respect of number of
other heinous offences. The High Court has failed to take note
of the same.Therefore, the order has to pave the path of
extinction, for its approval by this Court would tantamount to
travesty of justice, and accordingly we set it aside."
26. Another aspect of the case which needs emphasis is the
manner in which the High Court has applied the principle of
parity. By its two orders both dated 21-12- 2020 [Pravinbhai
Hirabhai Koli v. State of Gujarat, 2020 SCC OnLine Guj 2986]
, [Khetabhai Parbatbhai Makwana v. State of Gujarat, 2020
SCC OnLine Guj 2988] , the High Court granted bail to Pravin
Koli (A-10) and Kheta Parbat Koli (A-15). Parity was sought
with Sidhdhrajsinh Bhagubha Vaghela (A-13) to whom bail
was granted on 22- 10-2020 [Siddhrajsinh Bhagubha Vaghela
v. State of Gujarat, 2020 SCC OnLine Guj 2985] on the ground
(as the High Court recorded) that he was "assigned similar
role of armed with stick (sic)". Again, bail was granted to
Vanraj Koli (A16) on the ground that he was armed with a
wooden stick and on the ground that Pravin (A-10), Kheta (A-
15) and Sidhdhrajsinh (A-13) who were armed with sticks had
42 been granted bail. The High Court has evidently
2026:JHHC:6421-DB
misunderstood the central aspect of what is meant by parity.
Parity while granting bail must focus upon the role of
the accused. Merely observing that another accused who
was granted bail was armed with a similar weapon is not
sufficient to determine whether a case for the grant of bail on
the basis of parity has been established. In deciding the
aspect of parity, the role attached to the accused, their
position in relation to the incident and to the victims is of
utmost importance. The High Court has proceeded on the
basis of parity on a simplistic assessment as noted above,
which again cannot pass muster under the law."
70. In the backdrop of the aforesaid settled legal position this
Court has gone through the 2nd supplementary charge-sheet
and other material available on record.
71. The supplementary charge-sheet has been examined by
this Court in order to assess as has been contended on behalf
of the NIA that the case of the appellant is similar to that of
accused Akash Kumar Roy from which this Court is in
agreement with such submission by going through the
incriminating material collected in course of investigation as
mentioned in paragraph 17.23, 17.24, 17.26 and 17.36 of the
supplementary charge-sheet, as quoted and referred
hereinabove. The complicity which has been found of the
appellant is similar to that of the accused Akash Kumar Roy
since the appellant was found to be along Akash Kumar Roy
from January/February, 2021 to July, 2021, the period in
which multiple consignments of arms and ammunitions from
2026:JHHC:6421-DB
MP and Maharashtra were received and provided to Akash
Kumar Roy @ Monu (A-27) and Kundan Kumar (A-28), the
appellant of the instant appeal.
72. It has also come in the aforesaid paragraph that Akash
Kumar Roy @ Monu (A-27) and Kundan Kumar (A-28) also
arranged a flat at Namkum (Ranchi) for the criminal activities
of the terrorist gang and both of them facilitated safe
stay/harbor to Shahrukh Ansari.
73. The aforesaid flat was raided by the Namkum Police on
19.07.2021 and from the spot the appellant was apprehended
with the arms and ammunitions supplied by Vikash Anand
Ojha.
74. It has come under paragraph 17.36 that the protected
witness "C" stated that Akash Kumar Roy @ Monu Roy (A-27)
and Kundan Kumar (A-28) arranged a flat in Namkum,
Ranchi on the basis of forged I/D proof. He saw other persons
with Akash Kumar Roy @Monu Roy (A-27) and Kundan
Kumar (A-28) at this flat. During, the photo identification
proceeding in presence of independent witnesses, protected
witness "C" identified the photograph of Vikash Anand Ojha
@ Abhishek (A-26) and stated that in the month of June/July
2021, he saw him with Akash Kumar Roy @ Monu Roy (A-27)
and Kundan Kumar (A-28) in the said flat. He also identified
the photograph of Shahrukh Ansari and stated that he saw
2026:JHHC:6421-DB
him before the raid by Namkum Police in this flat, this person
was also present at the said flat in Namkum with Akash
Kumar Roy Monu Roy (A-27) and Kundan Kumar (A-28).
75. Therefore, from the material which has come in course of
investigation basis upon which the 2nd supplementary
charge-sheet has been submitted, it would be evident that the
complicity of the appellant is similar to that of Akash Kumar
Roy of whom the bail application has already been rejected by
this Court.
76. The complicity of the other co-accused who has been
directed to be released on bail, there is no allegation of
receiving arms and ammunitions in huge quantity against
them and further culpability of the said co-accused persons
in alleged commission of crime is also different to the present
appellant.
77. This Court, in view of the principle of parity as discussed
hereinabove and taking into consideration the material
available against the present appellant and also the
culpability of the present appellant in alleged commission of
crime, is of the view that the principle of parity is not fit to be
applied herein.
78. Thus, this Court, taking into consideration the ratio
rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gurwinder
Singh (Supra) wherein the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble
2026:JHHC:6421-DB
Apex Court in the case of K.A. Najeeb (Supra) has been
referred, is of the view that the parameter which statutorily
has been provided under Section 43D(5) is to be taken into
consideration for the purpose of consideration of bail and if
the allegation as per the material collected in course of
investigation is found to be prima-facie untrue then only
prayer for bail, can be considered and if the allegation has
been found to be prima-facie true, the privilege of bail cannot
be granted.
79. This Court, based upon the aforesaid reason, is of the
view that the impugned order rejecting the prayer for bail,
suffers from no infirmity.
80. On basis of the discussion made hereinabove and taking
into consideration the fact that this Court has earlier
expressed its view on merit with regard to the prayer for
grant of bail of the present appellant and further there is no
vital change in circumstances as no fresh ground has been
agitated herein as also taking into consideration the
submission advanced on behalf of the respondent-NIA that
every endevour is being taken to conclude the trial by
pruning the number of the witnesses substantially, this Court
is of the view that the order impugned dated 20.09.2025
passed in Misc. Cr. Application No. 1738 of 2025 requires no
interference.
2026:JHHC:6421-DB
81. Accordingly, the instant appeal fails and is, dismissed.
82. Pending Interlocutory Application(s), if any, also stands
dismissed.
83. It is made clear that any observation made herein will not
prejudice the case of the appellant in course of trial and the
view as expressed by this Court is only limited to the instant
appeal.
I agree (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J) (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)
11/03/2026
Alankar/A.F.R.
Uploaded on 11.03.2026
