2026 Supreme(Jhk) 515

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, SANJAY PRASAD, JJ.
Naresh Ganjhu - Appellant
Versus
Union of India through National Investigation Agency, New Delhi - Respondent
Criminal Appeal (DB) No.82 of 2026
Decided On : 07-04-2026

In cases involving specialized anti-terror legislation, bail is the exception rather than the rule. The principle of parity does not apply automatically; courts must evaluate the individual role of the accused alongside the gravity of the offence and the prima facie truth of the accusations while balancing national interest.

Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure - Bail - Specialized Anti-Terror Legislation - Statutory restriction on bail - Where accusations are prima facie true, bail must be rejected as a rule - Proviso imposes a complete embargo on the powers of the Court to release an accused without affording the prosecution a fair opportunity and evaluating the merits of the case diary and chargesheet. (Paras 43, 48, 53)

(B) Principle of Parity - Bail - Scope - Parity is not an absolute rule - The Court must focus on the individual role attached to the accused rather than relying purely on relief granted to co-accused - The Court must consider the totality of circumstances before passing any order as the exercise of this principle cannot be capricious. (Paras 90, 91)

(C) Right to Fair Trial - Delay in trial - In cases implicating sovereignty, integrity, or security of the nation, mere delay does not operate as a trump card to override statutory restraints - Delay serves as a trigger for heightened judicial scrutiny rather than automatic relief under Article 21. (Paras 56, 76)

Facts of the case:
The appellant, accused of participating in a conspiracy to commit violent acts against security personnel, filed an appeal against the rejection of their bail application. The appellant argued for release based on long custody, the potential for trial delay, and the principle of parity, noting that certain co-accused individuals had been granted bail. The prosecution opposed the request, highlighting substantial evidence of the appellant acting as an overground worker for a banned entity, including the provision of logistical support and active participation in the conspiracy.

Findings of Court:
The Court found that the material evidence established a link between the appellant and the leadership of a proscribed organization. It observed that the appellant’s role in providing resources and acting as a facilitator was substantiated by the final report. The judicial scrutiny confirmed that there were reasonable grounds to believe the accusations were prima facie true, thereby invoking the restrictive provisions of the special legislation governing the offence.

Issues: The central issues addressed were whether the appellant is entitled to bail on the grounds of parity with co-accused, and whether prolonged incarceration or potential trial delay necessitates bail despite statutory prohibitions in cases involving national security.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that under specialized anti-terror legislation, the test for rejection of bail is plain: when the court forms an opinion that there are reasonable grounds to believe the accusations are prima facie true, bail must be rejected. The principle of parity cannot be applied mechanically; it requires evaluating the specific role of the accused. Furthermore, national security interests place temporary limitations on personal liberty, and delay alone does not automatically extinguish the legislative embargo when the accusation involves the integrity and security of the nation.

Result: Appeal dismissed.