2026 Supreme(Online)(Jhk) 607

HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND
Sujit Narayan Prasad, Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, JJ
Fuleshwar Gope – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India – Respondent
Cr. Appeal (DB) No.1271 of 2025

In cases involving national security, the statutory embargo under Section 43D(5) overrides the general bail principle of 'bail is the rule, jail is the exception.' Prolonged incarceration does not automatically entitle an accused to bail if the court finds a prima facie case of involvement in terrorist activities.

Headnote:(A) Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 - Section 43D(5) - Bail - Principles for grant of bail where prima facie case of terrorist activity and conspiracy is made out - Statutory embargo on bail arises if court is of opinion that accusations are prima facie true - Special enactments regarding bail in cases involving national security override the general principle that 'bail is the rule, jail is the exception' - Pro-longed incarceration alone does not displace statutory restraint in cases of grave offences implicated in national security. (Paras 16, 17, 27-31, 38-43)

(B) Appeal - Scope - Principle of parity - Parity is not a law to be applied mechanically - Court must focus on the role attributed to the accused - Where individual roles differ within a larger criminal conspiracy, the benefit of parity cannot be extended simply because other co-accused have been granted bail. (Paras 52-60)

Facts of the case:
The appellant, accused of participating in a criminal conspiracy with a proscribed terrorist organization, sought regular bail. The prosecution alleged the appellant acted as a director of a front company used to channelize extorted funds into legitimate financial streams. Multiple previous applications for bail had been rejected by the lower court, the High Court, and the Supreme Court, with findings that the appellant's role was central to terrorist financing. The present appeal was preferred on grounds of prolonged incarceration (five and a half years) and parity with other co-accused who had been granted bail.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the trial was at the stage of recording statements under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Holding that the evidence collected during investigation establishes a prima facie case of the appellant's involvement in a larger conspiracy to channelize terror funds, the court concluded that the statutory embargo against bail under Section 43D(5) remains operative.

Issues: Whether, in view of prolonged incarceration and the grant of bail to co-accused, the appellant is entitled to bail, and whether the principle of parity applies despite prima facie evidence of major involvement in terrorist financing.

Ratio Decidendi: In cases involving national security and organized terrorist activity, the legislative mandate of the special statute restricts the exercise of judicial discretion. Prolonged incarceration is not a solitary determinant for bail when the accusation of serious offenses is prima facie true, and the principle of parity cannot be invoked when the role attributed to the accused is central rather than peripheral.

Result: Appeal dismissed.