IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, ARUN KUMAR RAI, JJ.
Babulal Turi, Son of Dinesh Turi - Appellant
Versus
National Investigation Agency, New Delhi – Respondent
Criminal Appeal (DB) No.818 of 2025
Decided On : 04-11-2025
JUDGMENT :
Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
1. The instant appeal preferred under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 is directed against the order dated 13.08.2024 passed in Misc. Cr. Application No.2081 of 2024 by the learned AJC-XVI-cum-Special Judge, NIA, Ranchi whereby and whereunder the prayer for bail of the appellant in connection with Special (N.I.A) Case No. 01 of 2021, arising out of Balumath P.S. Case No.234 of 2020 re-registered as RC Case No.01/2021/NIA/RNC under Sections 147, 148, 149, 353, 504, 506, 307, 427, 435, 386, 387, 120B and 212 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 25(1)(b), 26, 27 and 35 of the Arms Act, Section 3/4 of Explosive Substance Act, Section 17 of CLA Act and Section 16(1)(b), 18, 19, 20 and 23 of UA(P) Act, has been rejected.
2. At the very outset, it needs to mention herein that earlier this Court vide order dated 08.09.2023 passed in Criminal Appeal (DB) No.549 of 2023 has dismissed the prayer for bail of the present appellant on merit by passing a detailed order.
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, DO holders and disruption of legitimate works. Accordingly, Balumath P.S. Case No. 234/2020 dated 19.12.2020 was registered under Sections 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, against Sujit Sinha, Aman Sahu, Pradeep Ganjhu, Santosh Ganjhu, Bihari Ganjhu, Pramod Ganjhu, and 5- 6 other unknown accused persons.
4. 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 vide F. No. 11011/01/2020/NIA dated 7.1.2020, directed the NIA to take up the investigation of the aforesaid case. On the direction of the Ministry of Home Affairs NIA re-registered the bearing Case No. 01/2021/NIA- RNC dated 4.3.2021 under Sections 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, section 17 CLA Act and sections 10, 13, 16(1) (b), 20 and 23 UA(P) Act.
5. After investigation NIA submitted chargesheet against Sujit Sinha (A-1), Aman Sahu @ Aman Sao (A-2), Pradip Gajhu @ Mandal alias Prem (A-3), Santosh Gajhu (A-4), Bihari Ganjhu (A-5), Sakendra Ganjhu (A-6), Pramod Ganjhu (A-7), Babulal Turi @ Prabhat @ Guruji @ Avinash @ Shankar (A-8) (the present appellant), Ajay Turi (A-9), Santosh Kumar @ Banti Yadav @ Banti Yadav (A-10), Prabhat Kumar Yadav @ Dimple Yadav (A-11), Pritam Kumar @ Chiku Yadav (A-12), Santosh Kumar Yadav (A-13), Jasim Ansari (A-14), Wasim Ansari @ Chote (A-15), Majibul Ansari (A-16) and Jahiruddin Ansari (A-17) under Sections 147, 148, 149, 353, 504, 506, 307, 427, 435, 386, 387, 120B, 121A, 216 of IPC, Sections 25(1) (b), 26, 27 and 35 of Arms Act, Section 3/4 of Explosive Substance Act, Section 17 of CLA act, 1908 and Section

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.
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.
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 ....
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 established that under the UAPA, particularly Section 43D(5), the standard for denying bail is based on whether the accusations are prima facie true, which requires a careful examination of....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.