Patna High Court
Bhikhan Ganjhu @ Deepak Kumar vs The State Of Bihar on 19 February, 2025
Author: Rajeev Ranjan Prasad
Bench: Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, Shailendra Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.1520 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-5 Year-2019 Thana- NIA District- Patna
======================================================
Bhikhan Ganjhu @ Deepak Kumar, S/o Bandhu Ganjhu, R/o Village- Vijan,
P.O and P.S- Piparwar, District- Chatra, Jharkhand, PIN- 825321.
... ... Appellant
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Union of India, through National Investigating Agency Represented by
Superintendent of Police N.I.A Having its office at N.I.A. Camp Office,
Patna.
... ... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant : Mr. Balaji Srinivasan, Advocate
Mr. Niranjan Kumar, Advocate
Ms. Aakriti Priya, Advocate
Mr. Vinayak Harshvardhan, Advocate
For the UoI : Mr. Dr. K.N. Singh, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Arvind Kumar, Special PP
For the State : Mr. Abhimanyu Sharma, Addl PP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD)
Date : 19-02-2025
Heard Mr. Balaji Srinivasan, learned counsel assisted by
Ms. Akriti Priya and Mr. Niranjan Kumar, learned counsel on
behalf of the appellant and Mr. Arvind Kumar, learned Special PP
for the National Investigating Agency ( in short 'NIA').
2. By filing this appeal, the sole appellant has assailed
the judgment dated 25.10.2024 passed by learned Special Judge,
NIA at Patna (hereinafter referred to as learned trial court) in
Special Case No. 02 of 2021 in connection with R.C. Case No. 05
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1520 of 2024 dt.19-02-2025
2/18
of 2019. Learned trial court has been pleased to reject the prayer
for regular bail of the appellant under Section 43(D) of the
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (in short 'UA(P) Act')
read with Section 439 and 440 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
(in short 'Cr.P.C.').
Brief Facts of the Case
3. It is alleged that the petitioner is Zonal Commander of
Tritiya Prastuti Committee (hereinafter referred to as the 'TPC'),
terrorist gang which is a banned organization. In it's third
supplementary charge sheet filed by the NIA showing this
appellant an absconder, the facts revealed in course of
investigation which are the basis of filing the charge sheet are
stated in paragraph 17.7, 17.8, 17.21, 17.22 and 17.24 of the
charge sheet. The appellant has been described as A-8 in the
supplementary charge sheet. It is revealed that the appellant is the
Zonal Commander of the banned organization and is engaged in
extortion of huge levy from coal transporters by putting them in
fears of death/grievous hurt in the State of Jharkhand and carries
highly sophisticated and prohibited arms for the same purpose. In
paragraph 17.11 of the first supplementary charge sheet, it is stated
that a consignment of four AK-47 rifles, 4000 live cartridges, 2/3
Magazine of AK-47 rifles was forwarded by Ningkhan Sangatam
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1520 of 2024 dt.19-02-2025
3/18
(A-6) to Mukesh Singh (A-5) and Santosh Singh (A-7) by a truck,
bearing registration no. NL07A6508 owned by Ningkhan
Sangatam (A-6). It is alleged that these weapons were supplied to
Tripurari Singh (A-4) who further delivered them to Bhikhan
Ganju (the appellant), the Zonal Commander of TPC. Another
consignment of arms and ammunition consisting of one number of
30.06 rifle, 1000 live cartridges of 30.06 bore, 1000 live cartridges
of AK-47 rifle, four bullet proof jackets were sent to Mukesh
Singh (A-5) and Santosh Singh (A-7) through Suraj (A-1). The
investigation revealed that the consignments of January 2018,
April 2018 and June 2018 were further delivered to Tripurari
Singh by the accused persons and the said consignments were
delivered to this appellant by the accused Tripurari Singh (A-4). In
its first supplementary charge sheet, NIA has recorded that accused
Santosh Kumar @ Santosh Singh (A-7) was remanded in this case
on 30th September, 2019 but Bhikhan Ganju (A-8) is still an
absconder.
Submissions on behalf of the Appellant
4. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted
before the this Court that in this case, the appellant has been
implicated on the strength of a confessional statement of Tripurari
Singh (A-4). It is his submission that the investigation has not
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1520 of 2024 dt.19-02-2025
4/18
established any trail of money against this appellant save and
except a revelation by the co-accused Tripurari Singh that this
appellant has given him Rs.60,000/- in cash.
5. Learned counsel submits that earlier, the prayer for
bail of Tripurari Singh was rejected by this Court vide judgement
dated 22.11.2021 in Cr. Appeal DB No. 180 of 2021. However,
later on, a learned Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated
06.04.2023
passed in Cr. Appeal DB No. 930 of 2022 granted bail
to said Tripurari Singh. A copy of the judgment dated 06.04.2023
granting bail to said Tripurari Singh has been placed before this
Court.
6. Learned counsel submits that the prayer for bail of
another co-accused Santosh Kumar @ Santosh Singh was rejected
by the learned co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated
03.10.2023 passed in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 114 of 2021 after
noticing that the case of Santosh was distinguishable from that of
Tripurari Singh @ T.P. Singh, therefore, principles of parity would
not be available. The said judgment of learned co-ordinate Bench
of this Court was taken in appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No. 2319
of 2024 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to notice
that the petitioner was arrested on 30.09.2019 and since then he
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1520 of 2024 dt.19-02-2025
was in custody whereas the chargesheet was filed suggesting 178
prosecution witnesses to be examined against him. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court having considered the period already spent by the
petitioner in custody and the fact that the conclusion of trial will
take reasonably long time, directed release of the appellant
Santosh Kumar @ Santosh Singh on bail, subject to certain
conditions.
7. It is further submitted that another co-accused
Mukesh Singh moved this Court in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 563 of
2022 for grant of bail which was refused by this Court vide order
dated 30.04.2024 whereafter the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been
pleased to allow the prayer of the appellant Mukesh Singh @
Pinku in Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 11940 of
2024 vide order dated 11.11.2024. It is submitted that another co-
accused namely Ningkhan Shangtam whose prayer for bail has
been rejected by the Court in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 882 of 2023 has
moved the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Special Leave Petition
is pending consideration.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant has apart from
placing the aforementioned judgments relied upon the following
judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court to support his contention
that the appellant who has been produced in this case on
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1520 of 2024 dt.19-02-2025
25.08.2023, having spent about one and half year would be
entitled to get privilege of bail on the same principles on which the
other co-accused have been granted.
Sl. No. Case Title Reference
1. Yedala Subba Rao v. Union of (2023) 6 SCC 65
India
2. Ashim v. NIA (2021) 9 SCC 607
3. Union of India v. KA Najeeb (2021) 3 SCR 443
4. Angela Barish Sontakke v. (2021) 3 SCC 723
State of Maharashtra
5. Thwaha Fasal v. Union of (2021) 8 SCR 797
India
6. Vernon v. State of (2023) 10 SCR 867
Maharashtra
7. Gurwinder Singh v. State of (2024) 12 SCR 134
Punjab
8. Shoma Kanti Sen v. State of (2024) 4 SCR 270
Maharashtra
9. Javed Guam Nabi Shaikh v. 2024 INSC 645
State of Maharashtra and
Another
10. Sheikh Javed Iqbal @ Ashfaq 2024 INSC 534
Ansari @ Javed Ansari v.
State of Uttar Pradesh
11. Pradeep Rameshwar Sharma 2023 SCC
v. National Investigating OnLine SC1075
Agency & Anr.
12. Jalaluddin Khan v. Union of 2024 INSC 604
India
13. V. Senthil Balaji v. The (2024) 10 SCR
Enforcement
14. Sundeep Kr Bafna v. State of (2014) 16 SCC
9. At this stage, this Court would briefly take note of one
more submission of learned counsel for the appellant not because
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1520 of 2024 dt.19-02-2025
the same is much relevant for this case but because it has been
pleaded extraneously before this Court. Learned counsel for the
appellant has submitted that even though, he was produced in this
case on 25.08.2023 after the fifth production warrant, the fact
remains that he was arrested on 25.03.2022 in connection with
another case at Ranchi and he was in Hotwar Jail since then. In the
said case, the appellant has been released on bail by the Hon'ble
Jharkhand High Court vide judgment dated 04.07.2024 in Cr.
Appeal (DB) No. 554 of 2024. It is the submission that he had
filed an application dated 24.03.2023 in the court of Special Judge,
NIA, Patna with a prayer that production of the appellant may be
accepted through video conferencing as there is threat to his life
but the said application of the appellant was rejected by the
learned trial court on the ground that the petitioner had nowhere
stated as to from whom he was apprehending life threat. The
learned trial court was of the opinion that there was nothing on the
record to show that there is any threat to life of the appellant. So,
considering all the facts and circumstances, the court did not find it
judicious to allow the application and rejected the same.
10. It is submitted that because the learned NIA court
did not agree for his production through video conferencing, the
delay has occurred. For purpose of academic discussion as to
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1520 of 2024 dt.19-02-2025
whether the petitioner would be deemed to be in custody in
connection with this case because his prayer for production
through video conferencing was refused by the court, the learned
counsel has taken this court through the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in case of Sundeep Kumar Bafna vs. State of
Maharashtra reported in (2014) 16 SCC 623.
Submissions on behalf of the NIA
11. Contesting the appeal on behalf of the NIA, Mr.
Arvind Kumar, learned Special PP for NIA has taken this Court
through the relevant paragraphs of the chargesheet in which it has
been stated that the investigation revealed that the consignments of
arms and ammunition were delivered to this appellant through
Tripurari Singh (A-4). Learned Special PP submits that the present
case has been registered after recovery of parts of one AK-47 rifle
and 2 UVGL (Under Barrel Grenade Launcher) and one empty
magazine of AK-47 along with 800 live cartridges 5.56 x 45 mm
which were kept concealed and were being transported in a seized
white colour Tata Safari. The seizures of 600 rounds of
ammunition was made on 07.02.2019 and rest of arms and
ammunition were recovered later on 10.02.2019 from the cavities
created in the vehicle on the disclosure of the accused persons. It is
submitted that interrogation of the accused persons revealed the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1520 of 2024 dt.19-02-2025
entire transactions which were being carried out. Tripurari Singh
(A-4) has made disclosure before independent witnesses and in
NIA Case No. RC-06/2018/NIA-DLI registered under various
sections of IPC and UA(P) Act and the Criminal Law Amendment
Act, 1908, the chargesheet of the said case carries Section 164
Cr.PC statements of the other co-accused which establish his
position as a Zonal Commander of TPC having clear links with the
co-accused of this case. It is a banned unlawful association and is a
terrorist gang operating in the State of Bihar and Jharkhand.
Learned counsel refers the observations in paragraph '16' of the
impugned judgment.
12. It is stated that the appellant faced around 28 cases,
details of which have been given in paragraph '16' of the counter
affidavit with the copy of the FIRs enclosed as Annexure- B. It is
submitted that the statement of the witnesses revealed that the
appellant was involved in procuring arms and ammunition to
strengthen the foothold of TPC in the State of Jharkhand and to
commit terrorist act with intention to wage war against the
Government. In this connection, the observations in paragraph '17'
of the impugned judgment have been brought to the notice of this
Court.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1520 of 2024 dt.19-02-2025
13. Learned counsel for the NIA has taken this Court
through the order of the learned co-ordinate Bench of this Court in
the case of Tripurari Singh. It is pointed out that the learned co-
ordinate Bench granted bail to Tripurari Singh (A-4) after noticing
the earlier observation of this Court wherein this Court had
observed that the said appellant was in incarceration for over two
years, therefore, the trial court was directed to conduct the trial
expeditiously and conclude the same as early as possible. In
paragraph '8' of its order, the learned co-ordinate Bench noticed
that the appellant was undergoing pretrial detention from
16.02.2019 and it was not in dispute that the prosecution had cited
as many as 176 prosecution witnesses. The charge was framed
only on 23.02.2022, therefore, for all these reasons, the learned co-
ordinate Bench was pleased to enlarge the said appellant on bail. It
is submitted that later on, the number of witnesses to be produced
in course of trial has been pruned and it has been brought down to
98 in the case of Tripurari Singh whereas in the case of the present
appellant, a separate trial is going on because he was absconding
so the trial has been delayed, he has instruction to say that the
number of witnesses is likely to be brought down around 100. It is
further pointed out that in the case of this appellant, 44 witnesses
have already been examined and from the judgment of the learned
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1520 of 2024 dt.19-02-2025
trial court which is impugned in the present appeal, it would
appear that the trial court has itself recorded that the dates are
given in slot.
14. Learned counsel further submits that so far as the
case of Santosh Singh and Mukesh Singh who have been granted
bail by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is concerned, it would appear
from a bare reading of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
that while Mukesh Singh has been granted bail after noticing in
paragraph '4' that he does not have criminal antecedent and he is
not a repeat offender, and that he was in incarceration since
18.02.2019 which was more than five years and six months.
Contrary to this fact situation, in the present case the appellant is
said to be the Zonal Commander of a banned terrorist organization
who has got 28 cases. He remained absconding for a long time and
delayed the trial. This Court would hasten to add here that learned
counsel for the appellant has informed this Court that there were
30 cases against the appellant and out of those 30 cases, in 15
cases at least, he has been acquitted.
15. Learned counsel for the NIA has further submitted
that Santosh Kumar @ Santosh Singh was granted bail by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court again after noticing that he was arrested
on 30.09.2019 and was in custody since then. It is submitted that
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1520 of 2024 dt.19-02-2025
once again, the case of the present appellant would stand on
different footing with that of Santosh Singh for the reason that he
was an absconder at the time of filing of chargesheet and in
connection with this case, he has been produced only on
25.08.2023.
16. Learned counsel for the NIA has further
distinguished the cases cited on behalf of the appellants which we
have taken note of in paragraph '8' hereinabove. It is submitted
that in most of the cases, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased
to grant bail to the accused after finding that either the charges
were not framed or that they were in incarceration for long years
i.e. for more than five years to eight years. In some of the cases,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court found that there were huge number of
witnesses ranging in between 300 to 550 witnesses. In V. Senthil
Balaji case, there were 2000 accused. It is submitted that every
case has its own fact situation and the judgments rendered by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court have been given in the particular fact
situation of the case.
17. It is submitted that in the present case, the
distinguishable features of the case are apparent. The appellant
was an absconder, the trial has been delayed for this reason and he
has huge criminal antecedents and has been in incarceration in
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1520 of 2024 dt.19-02-2025
connection with this case only for about one and half year. At the
same time, the number of witnesses which are left to be examined
are only around 56-60 which is not such that they are not likely to
be examined within a reasonable period.
Consideration
18. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and
learned counsel for the NIA as also perused the records. The
appellant in this case is making prayer for bail on the ground of
parity.
19. Learned counsel for the appellant has while raising
the plea of parity submitted that the appellant has been implicated
in this case on the basis of confessional statement of the co-
accused Tripurari Singh @ T.P. Singh. It has been stated before
this Court that on behalf of Tripurari Singh, it was claimed that
there was no tangible evidence with regard to the allegations that
he used to travel for supplying arms and he funded Rs.60,000/- to
Bhikhan Ganju (the appellant). The learned co-ordinate Bench has,
in case of Tripurari Singh recorded that the learned Prosecutor has
read opinion of the investigator reflected in the chargesheet to
demonstrate that there is evidence against the appellant, however,
he is not in a position to point out any evidence against the
appellant in form of statement of witnesses or the bank accounts.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1520 of 2024 dt.19-02-2025
20. We have considered the submissions made at the
Bar. In order to grant bail to the accused on the principle of parity,
we are reminded of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Ramesh Bhavan Rathod v. Vishanbhai Hirabhai
Makwana reported in (2021) 6 SCC 230 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 in the
event of conviction. In Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P.12,
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 order13 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."
12. (2014) 16 SCC 508 : (2015) 3 SCC (Cri) 527]
13 Mitthan Yadav v. State of U.P., 2014 SCC OnLine All 16031
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1520 of 2024 dt.19-02-2025
26. ........ 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."
21. From the materials available on the record, we find
that while granting bail to Mukesh Singh @ Pinku in Special
Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No. 11940 of 2024, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has observed in paragraph '4' interalia as under:-
4. Learned Additional Solicitor General of India
rightly submits that the trial has since been
expedited. However, it seems to us that in
conclusion of the remainder of the prosecution
evidence and the defence evidence, if any that may
be led by the petitioner or his co-accused, the
conclusion of trial will take some reasonable time.
The petitioner does not have criminal antecedents.
He is not a repeat offender. It is true that the nature
of charges is quite serious. However, having regard
to the period already undergone by the petitioner,
we are satisfied that he can be released on bail at
this stage. Ordered accordingly."
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1520 of 2024 dt.19-02-2025
22. Earlier, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has noticed in
paragraphs '2' and '3' of the said judgment that the appellant was
arrested on 18.02.2019 and he was in custody for more than five
years and six months. As regards the status of trial, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court was informed that after framing of charge, the trial
has commenced and around 50 witnesses out of 106 witnesses had
since been examined. In the present case, we find that contrary to the
case of Mukesh Singh @ Pinku, the appellant has huge criminal
antecedents. He is said to be a Zonal Commander of an outfit namely,
TPC which is a banned terrorist organization. His period of
incarceration in connection with this case is only one and half year
and the fact remains that he was absconding at the time of filing of
chargesheet and only three years later, he was arrested at Ranchi in
connection with another case. He is, therefore, a history-sheeter.
23. Similarly, the case of the appellant is distinguished
from that of Santosh Kumar @ Santosh Singh. In the said case also,
the appellant was in incarceration for more than five years after his
arrest on 13.09.2019 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court found that the
list of the witnesses has though been pruned to 98 instead of 178,
only 35 witnesses had since been examined. In the present case,
however, the fact is that the appellant has been produced in this case
only on 25.08.2023 and 44 witnesses as submitted by learned counsel
for the appellant have already been examined in approximately 1½
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1520 of 2024 dt.19-02-2025
years. The learned trial court has recorded that dates are being
provided in slot, hence, it cannot be said that the conclusion of trial
in the present case is likely to result in an incarceration for indefinite
period and there is no likelihood of conclusion of the trial in near
future.
24. Similarly, Tripurari Singh has been granted bail by
learned co-ordinate Bench of this Court after noticing that at that
time, the prosecution had cited as many as 176 prosecution witnesses
and he was in custody since 16.02.2019.
25. In the present case, the learned trial court has recorded
in paragraph '11' of the impugned order that 22 witnesses examined
in course of trial have supported the prosecution case.
26. So far as other judgments which have been cited at the
Bar and we have taken note of the same hereinabove are concerned,
in those judgments also we find that in most of the cases, either the
charges were not framed or the accused was in custody for a long
period ranging between 5 and 8 years and there was no hope of
conclusion of trial within a reasonable period.
27. Having regard to the seriousness of the matter, the
severity of punishment, the huge criminal antecedent of the appellant
and the fact that he was absconding for a long time which has
resulted in delayed trial are some of the distinguishing features of the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1520 of 2024 dt.19-02-2025
case of the appellant, the plea of parity would, therefore, not succeed.
We are of the opinion that he would not deserve bail at this stage.
28. Learned counsel for the NIA has given us to
understand that they are making all endeavours to produce six to
eight witnesses in a month on the dates provided by the learned trial
court and there is every possibility that all the prosecution witnesses
would stand examined at best within a period of one year from today.
29. Taking note of the aforesaid stand of the NIA, we say
that in case, the prosecution witnesses are not produced on the slot
dates in the matter and they do not get examined within a period of
one year, as has been stated by learned counsel for the NIA, the
appellant may renew his prayer for bail.
(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J)
( Shailendra Singh, J)
Lekhi/-
Priyanka/-
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE
Uploading Date 21.02.2025
Transmission Date 21.02.2025
