A bail application can be denied based on the severity of charges, potential evidence tampering, and the accused's extensive criminal history, highlighting the need for judicial caution in organized crime cases.

ORDER :

1. The instant appeal under section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 has been directed against the order dated 19.12.2023 passed by the learned A.J.C.-XVIII cum Special Judge, ATS, Ranchi in Misc. Criminal Application No.3537 of 2023 whereby and whereunder the prayer for bail of the appellant in connection with ATS Case No.09 of 2023 corresponding to ATS P.S. Case No.07 of 2023 registered for the offence under Sections 353 , 332, 333, 307 and 120B of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , Section 27 of the ARMS ACT and Section 16 , 17 and 20 of the U.A.P. Act, has been rejected.

2. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that it is a case where the appellant has falsely been implicated and even though he has been found to be in judicial custody, the allegation has been levelled against him and, as such, it is nothing but false implication of the present appellant.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that one co-accused has been directed to be released on bail.

4. He has further submitted that identically placed co- accused persons, namely, Hari Tiwari @ Dhirendra Tiwari and even Aman Sao the other member of the gang and one Ashok Rai have withdrawn the appeals having not pressed.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that he has filed a supplementary affidavit in which it has been stated that in 10 criminal cases he has been acquitted. It has also been stated that in most of the cases he is on bail.

6. While on the other hand, Mr. Vineet Kumar Vashistha, learned Special Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State, has vehemently opposed the prayer to interfere with the impugned order.

7. It has been contended that the appellant is associated with an inter-State organized criminal gang having 22 criminal cases pending against him.

8. Learned counsel has submitted that against the appellant there is serious allegation of ransom and running the gang from inside the jail and involved in terrorist activities.

9. The submission has been made that he is an active aid and member of Aman Sao @ Aman Sahu, the leader of inter-state organized criminal gang and of the banned extremist organization TPC and PLFI.

10. It has further been submitted that the empties of automatic fire-arm ammunition, mobile phone of police S.I. Shri Sonu Kumar Sahu, shattered by bullets fired by the above-mentioned gangsters, and other incriminating evidence were seized by police from the site of the encounter.

11. It has further been submitted that one Chandan Saw @ Chandan Sahu and one Sonu Kumar, are fellow gangsters and extremists, working with the same gang and who are aids of Aman Saw and Yogeshwar Mahto, the appellant, who were already arrested with fire arm, ammunition and motorcycle used in Barkagaon, Hazaribagh, Jharkhand, P.S. Case No. 156/2023 for Extortion and Murder and Argora P.S. Case No. 261/2023 for causing life threatening fire-arm injury and firing to terrorize people.

12. Learned State counsel has submitted that the arrested gangsters and extremists Chandan Saw and Sonu Kumar confessed that on 17.07.2023, that this violent act of terror and face off with the police happened solely on the instructions of the gang leaders and extremists Aman Saw, Yogeshwar Mahto (the petitioner) and other members of their organization.

13. Submission has also been made that the confessional statement of Siddharth Sao and Ranjan Kumar who opened fire on the police, inflicting grievous fire-arm injuries on Dy. S.P. Shri Niraj Kumar and Police Sub-Inspector Shri Sonu Kumar Sahu, are mentioned in Case Diary No. 02, para 18 and 22, Case Diary No. 11, para 78, Case Diary No. 19, para 99, 100 and 101, Case Diary No. 33, para 158