Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, JJ.
Kundan Kumar, s/o. Hari Giri – Appellant
Versus
National Investigation Agency, New Delhi – Respondent
Criminal Appeal (DB) No.1508 of 2025
Decided On : 11-03-2026
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appeal against nia bail rejection order. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. attack on police, vehicle burning, extortion conspiracy. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. charge-sheet filing and repeated bail denials. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. no incriminating evidence; parity; long custody. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 5. arms recovery; similar to akash roy; uapa jail rule. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28) |
| 6. recap of incident, investigation, charge-sheet evidence. (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 33 , 34) |
| 7. prior bail rejection; no new circumstances. (Para 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39) |
| 8. uapa s43d(5) stringent bail conditions. (Para 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48) |
| 9. delay not ground for uapa bail. (Para 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56) |
| 10. trial progress; tampering risk. (Para 57 , 58 , 59 , 60) |
| 11. co-accused bails listed. (Para 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65) |
| 12. parity requires identical roles. (Para 66 , 67 , 68 , 69) |
| 13. appellant complicity matches akash roy. (Para 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 77) |
| 14. appeal dismissed; prima facie case holds. (Para 78 , 79 , 80 , 81 , 82 , 83) |
Judgment :
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 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.
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 se
Under UA(P) Act Section 43D(5), bail denied if charge-sheet shows prima facie true accusations of terrorist gang involvement; custody/delay insufficient absent changed circumstances; parity only for ....
Bail under the U.A.P. Act requires prima facie assessment of allegations; long custody or parity with co-accused do not automatically justify release.
In cases under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, bail may be denied if there is prima facie evidence of serious criminal involvement linked to national security threats.
The court upheld the denial of bail under the UAP Act, emphasizing the serious nature of the charges and the prima facie evidence against the appellant.
The principle of parity in bail applications allows for equality among co-accused, emphasizing the right to a speedy trial and the unjust nature of prolonged incarceration without conviction.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
