[Cites 23, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Sriram Manjhi @ Shriram Manjhi vs State Of Jharkhand (Through Nia) on 16 March, 2026
Author: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Neutral Citation
2026:JHHC:7038-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 90 of 2026
Sriram Manjhi @ Shriram Manjhi, S/o Falar Manjhi @
Phalar Manjhi, R/o Chutiyakhal, P.O. + P.S.- Chowka,
Dist.- Seraikela. ... Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand (through NIA) ... Respondent
----
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
----
For the Appellant : Mr. Avishek Prasad, Adv.
For the Resp.-NIA : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Spl. P.P.-NIA
----
Dated : 16/03/2026
1. Heard Mr. Avishek Prasad, learned counsel for the
appellant and Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Spl. P.P.
2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 18-11-2025
passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-XVI-
cum-Special Judge for NIA cases, Ranchi in Criminal
Miscellaneous Application No. 1975/2025 in connection with
Special (NIA) Case No. 04/2020 arising out of Tiruldih P.S. Case
No. 16/2019, whereby and whereunder, the prayer for bail of the
appellant has been rejected.
3. The FIR was registered on the basis of a self-statement of
Sub Inspector Dayanand Ram of Tiruldih P.S., in which it was
stated that on 14.06.2019, several police personnel were on a
patrolling duty and had gone to the weekly market at Kuru, for
which a station diary entry was made. It has been alleged that at
about 5.45 P.M, the driver of the police vehicle namely Sukhlal
Kudada had informed the Munshi Bobby Jha through Mobile
that about one hour back, the miscreants have murdered the
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) NO. 90 OF 2026 1
Neutral Citation
2026:JHHC:7038-DB
police personnel by assaulting them with 'bhujali' and had also
looted arms and ammunitions. This information was entered in
the station diary and it was also informed to the higher officials.
After sometime, the police force had gone to the place of
occurrence and found the dead body of several police personnel
at the place of occurrence.
4. Based on the aforesaid allegations, Tiruldih P.S. Case No.
16 of 2019 was instituted for the offences punishable under
sections 147, 148, 149, 379, 302, 353, 323, 324 and 435 of the
Indian Penal Code, Section 27 of the Arms Act, Section 17 of the
Criminal Law Amendment Act and Section 10/13 of the Unlawful
Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.
5. The Central Government through Ministry of Home Affairs
in exercise of the powers conferred under section 6 (5) of the NIA
Act, 2008 had directed the NIA to take over investigation of
Tiruldih P.S. Case No. 16 of 2019. Consequently, the case was
re-registered as R.C.-39/2020/NIA/DLI corresponding to Special
NIA Case No. 4/2020.
6. It has been submitted by Mr. Avishek Prasad, learned
counsel for the appellant that the First Information Report was
instituted against unknown persons. The appellant has been
implicated on the basis of suspicion on account of a motorcycle
being provided purportedly by the appellant for commission of
the offence. None of the protected witnesses have identified the
appellant. It has been submitted that the appellant is in custody
since 20-07-2019 and till date, only 27 witnesses have been
examined by the prosecution out of 185 charge sheet witnesses,
which would indicate that there is no chance of the trial being
concluded in the near future. The appellant does not have any
criminal antecedent. Mr. Prasad has submitted that absence of
any incriminating materials against the appellant and his long
incarceration in custody activates the prayer for bail made by the
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) NO. 90 OF 2026 2
Neutral Citation
2026:JHHC:7038-DB
appellant.
7. Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned Spl. P.P.-NIA has opposed the
prayer for bail of the appellant and has submitted that in course
of investigation, the specific role of the appellant in the Kukru
Hat incident has been unearthed. The appellant, apart from
providing logistical support, was also a part of the conspirators
and had provided his motorcycle for carrying out the act of terror
at Kukru Hat Market. The appellant was identified by protected
witness "G" through photographs and the appellant has been
attributed of attending a meeting of the local supporters of (A-13)
one day prior to the commission of the deadly crime. The bail
application of several of the co-accused persons have been
rejected by this Court as well as Co-ordinate Benches of this
Court.
8. We have heard learned counsel for the respective sides and
have also perused the trial court records.
9. The role of the appellant has been described in the second
supplementary charge sheet submitted by the NIA which is
depicted herein under:
"17.36.3: Role and additional offences
established against Shriram Manjhi @ Sriram
Manjhi (A-3):-It is established that A-3 was a member
of CPI (Maoist). As per direction of A-17 & A-19, he used
to paste posters of CPI Maoist, before Parliamentary
election of 2019, for boycotting election. The state police
had seized Maoist booklet related to the boycott of
election from his house, at the instance of A-2. A-3 along
with A-2 & A-9, went to Arhanja forest to attend
meeting on 13.06.2019, conducted by A-19 & A-17, for
carrying out terrorist attack on police patrolling party at
Kukruhaat bazaar. A-3 also carried out recce of
Kukruhaat Baazar, before the incident, along with other
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) NO. 90 OF 2026 3
Neutral Citation
2026:JHHC:7038-DB
co- accused. He provided his motorcycle, Hero Splendor
model bearing registration No-JH05CC-1910, to co-
accused A-2, which was used in the commission of
instant crime. On 14.06.2019, A-3 kept watch on the
movement of security forces at Rangamati to
Nagasoreng to alert other co-accused in the commission
of instant crime.
Therefore, as per averments made in pre-para, it
is established that A-3 became a member of CPI
(Maoist), a proscribed organization, and was part of the
meeting in which conspiracy was hatched, among co-
accused, with common intention, and assisted co-
accused to assemble with deadly weapons at
Kukruhaat to carry out terrorist attack on police
patrolling party which resulted in the killing of 05 police
personnel and subsequently, snatching/ looting of
Government issued arms and ammunition, wireless set
and setting the vehicle on fire. Thereby, A-3committed
offences under sections 120B r/w 121, 121A, 396 of
IPC, sections 16, 18, 20, 38 and 39 of The Unlawful
Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967."
10. The appellant has been arrayed as (A-3) in the second
supplementary charge sheet and in course of investigation, it has
come to light that the appellant has essayed various roles in the
terrorist organisation. The appellant used to paste posters on the
direction of (A-17) and (A-19) calling for a boycott of the
Parliamentary Elections of 2019 and booklets were also seized
from his house which was related to the call for boycott of the
elections. The appellant had carried out a recce of Kukru Hat
Bazar before the incident and had attended a meeting at Arhanja
Forest to discuss the modalities of carrying out the attack on the
police party. He had also provided his motorcycle bearing
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) NO. 90 OF 2026 4
Neutral Citation
2026:JHHC:7038-DB
Registration No. JH-05CC-1910 to (A-2) which was used in the
commission of the offence. He is also said to have kept a watch
on the movement of the security forces from Rangamati to
Nagasoreng. From paragraph 17.32 of the Second
Supplementary Charge Sheet what transpires is the
identification of the appellant along with the other co-accused
persons by protected witness "G" with respect to the appellant
attending a meeting at Arhanja Forest a day prior to the dastardly
crime at Kukru Hat Market.
12. The prolonged incarceration and the possibility of the trial
being concluded any time sooner being remote appears to be the
predominant argument of the learned counsel for the appellant
in seeking bail, but when the backdrop of the case and the role
played by the appellant is considered, the long incarceration does
not become the only criteria to be considered. The allegation
against the appellant and his involvement in the offence clamps
down the issue of period of custody which does not become the
solitary ground for grant of bail.
13. In this context, we may refer to the case of Gulfisha
Fatima v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) reported in 2026 SCC
Online SC 10 wherein it has been held as follows:
"51. There is a further constitutional aspect that
warrants articulation. Article 21 protects individual
liberty. It also, within the same guarantee of life,
reflects the State's obligation to protect the life and
security of the community. In prosecutions alleging
threats to public order and national security, the Court
cannot be unmindful that both dimensions are engaged.
The constitutional order is not served by an approach
that treats liberty as the sole value and societal security
as peripheral. Both must be accommodated through
reasoned adjudication.
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) NO. 90 OF 2026 5
Neutral Citation
2026:JHHC:7038-DB
52. The consequence of the above is
that Najeeb (supra) must be understood as a principled
safeguard against unconscionable detention. Prolonged
incarceration is a matter of serious constitutional
concern and carries great weight. It is not, however, the
sole determinant. The Court must consider, in totality,
whether continued detention has become
constitutionally unjustifiable, having regard to the role
attributed, the statutory context, the limited prima facie
material, the trajectory of the trial, the causes of delay,
and the availability of intermediate remedies.
53. This approach does not dilute Article 21. It gives
Article 21 structured content in a field where the
Constitution itself recognises competing interests. Nor
does it render Section 43D(5) absolute. It recognises
that statutory restraint must yield in an appropriate
case where detention becomes punitive by reason of
unreasonable and unjustified delay. What it excludes
is a mechanical override based on time alone, divorced
from legal context.
54. Having set out the above governing approach, this
Court, in the later part of this judgment would apply
these principles in a calibrated manner viz. to the claim
of each of the appellants. The Court will examine, in
relation to each appellant, the role attributed and
whether the statutory threshold under Section 43D(5) is
attracted on the prosecution material taken at its
highest. Thereafter, where the plea of delay and
prolonged incarceration is pressed, the Court will
consider whether the circumstances warrant
constitutional intervention in terms of the principles
noticed above, or whether appropriate directions for
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) NO. 90 OF 2026 6
Neutral Citation
2026:JHHC:7038-DB
expeditious trial would adequately address the concern
expressed under Article 21.
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 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 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.
61. To read Najeeb (supra) as mandating bail solely on
account of prolonged incarceration, irrespective of the
statutory context or the nature of the allegations, would
be to attribute to the decision a consequence it neither
intended nor supports. Such a construction would also
lead to an interpretive absurdity, whereby a special
statute enacted by Parliament to address offences
implicating the sovereignty, integrity, and security of
the State would stand effectively neutralised by the
mere passage of time, even at a pre-trial stage. Such an
outcome cannot be countenanced in constitutional
adjudication. Accordingly, the finding in Najeeb (supra)
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) NO. 90 OF 2026 7
Neutral Citation
2026:JHHC:7038-DB
is properly situated as a constitutional safeguard to be
invoked in appropriate cases, and not as a
mathematical formula of universal application."
14. The allegation against the appellant would activate the
embargo for grant of bail as envisaged in Section 43D(5) of the
UA(P) Act, 1967 and such prima facie case being made out
against the appellant, we are not inclined to grant bail to the
appellant. In fact, the bail applications of several other co-
accused persons, similarly situated, have been rejected in
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 234/2022, Criminal Appeal (DB) No.
1293/2024, Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1539/2022 and Criminal
Appeal (DB) No. 1604/2024.
15. Thus, on an overall conspectus of the case, we do not find
any reason to interfere in the order dated 18-11-2025 passed by
the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-XVI-cum-Special
Judge for NIA cases, Ranchi in Criminal Miscellaneous
Application No. 1975/2025 in connection with Special (NIA) Case
No. 04/2020 arising out of Tiruldih P.S. Case No. 16/2019 and
consequently, we dismiss this appeal.
16. Pending I.A.(s), if any, stands closed.
(RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.)
(PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.)
Dated: 16th March, 2026
Preet/-
Uploaded on:17 /03/2026.
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) NO. 90 OF 2026 8
