Back
2025 Supreme(Jhk) 1469
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, ARUN KUMAR RAI, JJ.
Ajay Turi, Son of Govind Turi - Appellant
Versus
Union of India through National Investigation Agency, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, Ranchi – Respondent
Criminal Appeal (DB) No.781 of 2025
Decided On : 13-10-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Md. Razaullah Ansari, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate:Mr. Saurav Kumar, Advocate
Bail under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act is restricted if evidence suggests prima facie involvement in terrorism; mere custody or co-accused's bail cannot justify appellant's release.
Headnote:(A) National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 - Section 21(4); Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 - Sections 10, 13, 17, 18, 21, and 43D(5); Indian Penal Code - Sections 147, 148, 149, 353, 504, 506, 307, 427, 435, 386, 387, 120B, 121A, and 216; Arms Act - Sections 25(1)(b), 26, 27, and 35; Explosive Substance Act - Sections 3 & 4; Criminal Procedure Code - Section 173. Appeal Challenge - Bail application denial based on serious allegations of conspiracy and terrorism; insufficient evidence for bail granted to co-accused does not apply to appellant considering gravity of the offense. (Paras 1-4, 5-7, 43-46)
Facts of the case:
The appellant, arrested for involvement in a conspiracy leading to a violent attack on civilians and property, contests bail denial based on claims of innocence and lack of concrete evidence against him. Police discovered evidence of planned attacks and threats against coal transporters; several co-accused confessed to the appellant's involvement. (Paras 10-12, 17.3-17.15)
Findings of Court:
The court held allegations against the appellant as prima facie true, emphasizing that numerous witnesses identified his participation in violent acts. The existing evidence pointed towards a serious conspiracy warranting a denial of bail. (Paras 73-74)
Issues: Whether there exist substantial grounds for denying bail based on prima facie evidence of involvement in terrorist activities and conspiracy under the UAP Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the evidence presented justified the view that the appellant’s involvement is significant. It further stated that the gravity of accusations under the UAP Act necessitates strict scrutiny in bail proceedings - thus denying release based on prima facie established involvement.
Result: Appeal dismissed; bail application denied.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. details of the criminal activities and investigation (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. arguments by the appellant's counsel against bail rejection (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. court's review of the allegations and supporting evidence (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 4. legal provisions pertaining to bail under uapa (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 5. explanation of prima facie standards in bail considerations (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32) |
| 6. factual findings regarding the appellant's involvement in terrorism (Para 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44) |
| 7. court's evaluation of evidence against the appellant (Para 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49) |
| 8. court's findings on the appellant's arguments regarding attributability (Para 50 , 51 , 52) |
| 9. judicial stance on preservation of statutory provisions concerning bail (Para 53 , 54 , 55 , 56) |
| 10. distinguishing the present case from past judgments (Para 57 , 58 , 59) |
| 11. court's view on the issue of trial delays (Para 60 , 61 , 62 , 63) |
| 12. principles relating to parity in bail applications (Para 64 , 65 , 66 , 67) |
| 13. concluding remarks on the application of the law (Para 68 , 69 , 70) |
| 14. reaffirmation of prima facie evaluation and case complexities (Para 71 , 72 , 73) |
| 15. judgment conclusion and order dismissal (Para 74 , 75 , 76) |
JUDGMENT :
Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
Prayer
1. The instant appeal preferred under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 is directed against the order dated 13.06.2025 passed in Misc. Cr. Application No.705 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) No.01/2021 arising out of Balumath P.S. Case no.234 of 2020 re-registered as RC Case No.01/2021/NIA/RNC by NIA under Sections 147, 148, 149, 353, 504, 506, 307, 427, 435, 386, 387, 120B, 121A and 216 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 25(1)(b), 26, 27 and 35 of the Arms Act, Sections 3 & 4 of the Explosive Substance Act, Section 17 of CLA Act, 1908 and Sections 10, 13, 16(1)(b), 20 and 23 of UA(P) Act, has been rejected.
Facts
2. The brief facts of the case, as per the prosecution version, which required to be enumerated read hereunder as:-
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 at Tetariakhand Colliery. The assailants fired on the police party that had rushed to the spot. The assailants 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 were found from the spot. Upon further inquiry it was revealed that gangster Sujit Sinha and Aman Sao had conspired with accused Pradeep Ganjhu and his associates namely Santosh Ganjhu, Bihari Ganjhu, Sakendra Ganjhu, Pramod Ganjhu and others for extortion and disruption of Government works.
Accordingly, Balumath PS 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 and Section 3/4 of the Explosive Substances Act, against Sujit Sinha, Pradeep Ganjhu, Aman Sahu, Sakendra Ganjhu, Bihari Ganjhu, Pramod Ganjhu, Santosh Ganjhu and some other unknown accused persons.
3. 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.
4. On the direction of the Ministry of Home Affairs, NIA re-registered Case No. 01/2021/NIA-RNC d
