2026 Supreme(Online)(Jhk) 665

HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND
Sujit Narayan Prasad, Gautam Kumar Choudhary, JJ
Kundan Kumar – Appellant
Versus
National Investigation Agency – Respondent
Criminal Appeal (DB) No.1508 of 2025

In cases of grave offences under special statutes, bail is an exception. Prolonged incarceration and delay in trial do not automatically override statutory bars on bail if the prosecution demonstrates a prima facie case involving national security; parity claims regarding bail must be based on identical roles and facts.

Headnote:(A) National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 - Section 21(1) - Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 - Section 43D(5) - Bail proceedings - Grave offences - Delay in trial and long incarceration - Accusation of harbouring terrorists and supply of illicit arms - The legislative framework for bail in cases of grave offences affecting national security requires that if the allegations are found to be prima facie true, the statutory embargo on bail applies and bail is an exception - Mere delay in trial or prolonged custody does not automatically displace the statutory restraint nor does it act as a trump card to override the security concerns of the state. (Paras 34, 41, 48, 49, 50, 56)

(B) Bail - Principle of parity - Applicability - Parity cannot be claimed mechanically; it requires an exact similarity in facts and roles attributed to the accused - Where the nature of allegations, roles, and involvement in the criminal design differ, parity is not intended to be applied. (Paras 66, 68, 69, 77)

Facts of the case:
The appellant sought regular bail in connection with an FIR registered for various offences under the Indian Penal Code, Arms Act, Explosive Substances Act, and UA(P) Act, concerning acts of violence and extortion by an organized crime gang. The appellant's earlier bail applications were rejected by courts on merit, finding a prima facie case based on evidence of harbouring gang members and supplying arms. The present appeal challenges the rejection of bail, raising grounds of long custody, delay in trial, and parity with co-accused who were granted bail.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the appellant played an active role as part of a criminal conspiracy involving the arrangement of a secure location for harboring wanted individuals and facilitating the supply of firearms. The investigation pointed to specific incriminating material, including the recovery of weapons and identification by protected witnesses. Given the seriousness of the offence and the legislative mandate under the UA(P) Act, the court held that the material collected establishes a prima facie case against the applicant.

Issues: The main issues were whether the period of incarceration and delay in trial warrant the grant of bail in UAP Act cases, and whether the appellant is entitled to bail on the principle of parity compared to other co-accused.

Ratio Decidendi: The court maintained that in cases implicating national security, while the right to a speedy trial exists, it is not an absolute determinant for bail when the prosecution provides a prima facie case of active involvement in terrorist-linked activities. Parity claims fail when the role of the applicant is distinct from those who were granted bail, necessitating a contextual assessment of the criminality involved rather than a mechanical application of previous orders. (Paras 51, 52, 60, 69, 77)

Result: Appeal dismissed.