Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Jhk) 563

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, DEEPAK RAUSHAN, JJ.
Jugeshwar Mahto @ Yogeshwar Mahto - Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand - Respondent
Criminal Appeal (DB) No.1330 of 2025
Decided On : 06-04-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Hemant Kumar Shikarwar, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. Vineet Kumar Vashistha, Spl.PP

For offenses under special legislative enactments involving national security, bail is the exception. Mere trial delay and parity with co-accused are insufficient for release if prima facie evidence supports allegations, as individual liberty must be balanced against systemic societal security interests.

Headnote:(A) Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 - Sections 2, 15, and 43D(5) - Organized crime - Bail - Principles of parity and incarceration period - Accused charged with serious offenses under the special legislation - Whether bail can be granted merely due to trial delay or parity - Held, no - Statutory restrictions in special acts prevail over mechanical application of personal liberty in cases affecting national sovereignty. (Paras 38, 40, 41, 47, 51)

(B) Appellate Review - Scope and ambit - Court sitting in appeal is not to substitute its view for that of court below - Intervention restricted only to instances of perversity, illegality or vice compromising the decision beyond redemption. (Paras 89, 90)

Facts of the case:
The appellant moved for regular bail in a criminal proceeding involving charges of conspiracy, extortion, and violence against public servants. The appellant argued for parity with co-accused who had been released and cited a prolonged period of custody as grounds for relief. The state contended that the appellant had severe criminal antecedents, played an active role in an organized criminal nexus, and that the trial was at an advanced stage, with prima facie evidence supporting the allegations.

Findings of Court:
The court found that material on record established a prima facie case of conspiracy and commission of the stated offenses. It observed that the trial was proceeding expeditiously and that the appellant’s role and antecedents were distinguishable from those of the co-accused who had received bail. The court emphasized that the legislative intent of the special statute necessitates a strict approach to bail.

Issues: The main issues were whether long incarceration and parity with co-accused constitute sufficient grounds for bail in proceedings under special anti-terrorist legislation, and whether bail can be granted when the accusation is found to be prima facie true.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that under the special statute, bail is the exception and incarceration the rule. Where accusations are prima facie supported by the materials on record, statutory embargoes on bail are triggered. Principles like parity are inapplicable if roles and facts differ, and trial delay cannot be used as a mechanical ground for relief in grave offenses impacting public order and societal security.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

Table of Content
1. case background and procedural history of bail applications. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
2. contentions of parties regarding bail, parity, and custody period. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32)
3. legal standard for uapa bail under section 43d(5) and prime facie threshold. (Para 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53)
4. evaluation of accused's complicity and socio-legal impact of bail. (Para 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 78 , 79 , 80 , 81 , 82 , 83)
5. application of parity principle and final adjudication of appeal. (Para 84 , 85 , 86 , 88 , 89 , 90 , 91 , 92 , 93 , 94 , 95 , 96 , 97 , 98 , 99 , 100 , 101 , 102 , 103)

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 19.09.2025 passed in Misc. Cr. Application No.1771 of 2025 by the learned AJC-XVIII-cum-Special Judge-ATS, Ranchi whereby and whereunder the prayer for bail of the appellant in connection with ATS Court Case No.02 of 2024 arising out of ATS P.S Case No.07 of 2023 registered for the offence under Sections 353, 332, 333, 307, 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code, Section 27 of the Arms Act and Section 16, 17, 20 of U.A.P Act has been rejected.

Factual Matrix

2. The prosecution case is based upon the self-statement dated 17.07.2023 of one Law Kumar Singh, Inspector alleging therein that for the last few months accused Aman Sao @ Aman Sahu gang in a planned manner is operating gang from jail and through his gang members is indulged in extortion money from different individuals. On 17.07.2023 at about 21:30 hrs. the S.P, ATS received confidential information that Aman Sao from the Jail conspired with his other associates Akash Rai @ Monu, Hari Tiwari @ Dhirendra Tiwari, Boby Sao @ Sidharth Sao, Mayank Singh and other active members of the gang are collecting ransom from contractors, businessman, coal transporters, coal extracting companies, truck owner association on the threat of life.

3. It has further been alleged that the extortion money received by them is used for purchasing AK-47 and other sophisticated fire arms, large number of pistols, Carbine, revolver, cartridges explosives and those weapons and explosives are used to damage the Central Government and State Government institution, N.T.P.C, L&T, CCL which are working for the development of the country. Accused Aman Sao is associated with TPC and PLFI, banned organization of Jharkhand, and has nexus of interstate and international contacts, the high-profile criminals of Bihar, Rajasthan, Punjab, UP, Haryana, Nepal etc. The extortion/levy recovered is being used in country as well as outside country by his associate-Narayan Thapa of Nepal through Hawala and by using the said extortion money, sophisticated international standard weapons and explosive substance are purchased.

4. It has come on record that Aman Sao through his associates is able to stop the development work of the State Government and Central Government, the railway and road construction work and coal extraction work. Aman Sao is involved in about 90 cases of serious nature in Jharkhand and other States who is operating the gang from jail and due to his fear the businessmen, coal transport officials all under fear of life and many of them after giving the extortion money does not report to the police. Many shooters of Aman Sao gang, namely, Chandan Sahu who is accused of Barkagaon P.S. Case No.156 of 2023 in which the official of Ritwik Company was murdered. He is also accused of Argora P.S. Case No.261 of 2023.

5. An information was received that he along with his associates has stayed in the house of Champa Devi w/o Jodhan Munda in Vill- Dardag, Ormanjhi P.S. The said informatio

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

2026 Supreme(Jhk) 563

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHISUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, DEEPAK RAUSHAN, JJ.Jugeshwar Mahto @ Yogeshwar Mahto - AppellantVersusThe State of Jharkhand - RespondentCriminal Appeal (DB) No.1330 of 2025Decided On : 06-04-2026

Cases Referred (2)

Judicial Analysis

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, DEEPAK RAUSHAN, JJ.
Jugeshwar Mahto @ Yogeshwar Mahto - Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand - Respondent
Criminal Appeal (DB) No.1330 of 2025
Decided On : 06-04-2026