SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Jhk) 2287

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, JJ.
Hira Devi @ Anita Devi, D/o Chamru Gope - Appellant
Versus
Union of India through National Investigating Agency, having its office at N.I.A. Camp Office – Respondent 
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 2172 of 2023
Decided on : 25-09-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Balaji Srinivasan, Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Spl. P.P.-NIA

The rigours of statutory bail restrictions under anti-terrorism laws do not override an accused's constitutional right to a speedy trial. When incarceration becomes unduly prolonged and trial conclusion is uncertain, courts are empowered and obligated to grant bail to protect fundamental personal liberty.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 120B, 468, 471 - Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 - Sections 13, 17, 18, 21, 22

(C), 43-D(5) - Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1908 - Sections 17(i), (ii) - Bail - Long incarceration of undertrial - Constitutional rights - Speedy trial - Balancing of statutory rigours and fundamental rights. (Paras 4, 7-11)

(B) Bail - Statutory restrictions vs. Constitutional Rights - Rigours of statutory provision for bail do not override constitutional mandate for speedy trial - Prolonged detention without conclusion of trial violates personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution - When trial is unlikely to conclude within reasonable time, courts are obligated to grant bail. (Paras 8-11)

Facts of the case:
The appellant, spouse of the leader of a proscribed organization, sought bail in a case involving allegations of raising and laundering funds for terrorist activities. The appellant has been in custody for over five years, facing charges for conspiracy, forgery, and financial offences related to a terror-gang, while the trial has not concluded.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that while the charges are grave and attract statutory rigours, the constitutional guarantee of a speedy trial and the significant period of incarceration undergone by an undertrial prisoner necessitate the grant of bail. The court maintained that statutory restrictions on bail do not oust the jurisdiction of constitutional courts to protect fundamental liberty when the duration of detention becomes disproportionate.

Issues: Whether an appellant charged with serious offences under anti-terrorism laws should be granted bail based on the duration of incarceration when the trial is not likely to conclude in the near future.

Ratio Decidendi: The rigours of statutory bail provisions do not preclude constitutional courts from granting bail when an accused has suffered prolonged incarceration and the trial lacks the prospect of a swift conclusion, ensuring the protection of fundamental rights against indefinite detention.

Result: Appeal allowed.

Table of Content
1. procedural history and prosecution's factual allegations against the appellant (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 7)
2. conflicting contentions regarding bail under the unlawful activities (prevention) act (Para 4 , 5)
3. application of constitutional standards for speedy trial over statutory bail restrictions (Para 6 , 8 , 9 , 10)
4. grant of bail based on duration of incarceration and trial delay (Para 11 , 12 , 13)

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. Balaji Srinivasan, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned Spl. P.P-NIA.

2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 15-12-2023 passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-XVI- cum-Special Judge, NIA, Ranchi in Misc. Criminal Application No. 3041 of 2023 arising out of Special (NIA) Case No. 02/2018 corresponding to R.C. No. 02/2018/NIA/DLI whereby and whereunder, the prayer for bail of the appellant has been rejected.

3. The prosecution case arises out of a written report of Bindeshwari Das, Officer-in-Charge of Bero P.S. to the effect that a secret information was received on 10.11.2016 that the supremo of PLFI for the purpose of depositing his ill-gotten money of proceeds of crime realized as extortion had sent it through his associates for depositing in the Bank account for converting into white through a Safari vehicle bearing registration no. JH01Y-2898 to SBI, Bero Branch. After making a station diary entry and on the basis of the directives of the superior authorities, the informant along with other Police personnel went to SBI, Bero Branch for verification of the said information. It is alleged that at about 3:15P.M. the informant and his associates waited in ambush and in the meantime having seen the Police party 3-4 persons attempted to flee away and while one of the persons was apprehended from the campus of the Bank three other persons were apprehended while boarding on the Safari vehicle bearing registration no. JH01Y2898. On query the apprehended accused persons disclosed their name as Binod Kumar, Chandra Shekhar Kumar, Nand Kishore Mahto and Mohan Kumar. A search was conducted in presence of independent witnesses and one bag having 16 bundles of currency note of Rs. 1,000/- total amounting to Rs. 16,00,000/- was recovered from the possession of Binod Kumar and a mobile phone was also recovered from him. It has been alleged that an amount of Rs. 38,000/- was recovered from the possession of co-accused Chandra Shekhar Kumar along with deposit slips of various dates and one deposit slip of Rs. 16,00,000/- along with two mobile phones. It has also been alleged that total currency of Rs. 9,00,000/- was recovered from the possession of co- accused Nand Kishore Mahto and two mobile phones were recovered from Mohan Kumar @ Rajesh Kumar. None of the apprehended accused persons could show any documents with respect to the recovered currency notes and co-accused Binod Kumar had confessed that PLFI Supremo Dinesh Gope had instructed him over mobile to deposit the extorted amount of Rs. 25,38,000/- in the name of the Petrol Pump of co-accused Chandra Shekhar Kumar. All the articles were seized in presence of independent witnesses and a seizure list was also prepared.

Based on the aforesaid allegations Bero P.S. Case No. 67/2016 was instituted for the offences punishable u/s 212, 213, 414, 34 of the I.P.C., Section 13, 17, 40 of the UA(P) Act, 1967 and Section 17(ii) of the CLA Act. On completion of investigation charge-sheet was submitted against Vinod Kumar @ Binod Kumar, Chandra Shekhar Kumar, Nand Kishore Mahto and Mohan Kumar @ Rajesh Kumar for the offences punishable u/s 212, 213, 414and 34 of the I.P.C., Section 13, 17 and 40 of the UA(P) Act, 1967 and Section 17(ii) of the CLA Act.

Consequent to the order of the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs vide Order No. 11011/51/2017-IS, IV dated 16.01.2018, the National Investigation Agency had taken over the investigation of the case and consequently the First Information Report was re-re

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top