Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Jhk) 508

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, SANJAY PRASAD, JJ.
Rajan Sao - Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand - Respondent
Criminal Appeal (DB) No.57 of 2026
Decided On : 07-04-2026

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

In cases involving grave acts under special anti-terrorist legislation, the statutory embargo on bail prevails when accusations are prima facie true. Parity is not an absolute right and depends upon individual culpability. Prolonged detention does not automatically supersede legislative mandates regarding societal security and national integrity.

Headnote:(A) Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 - Sections 43D(5) and 43D(6) - Bail - Limitations and legislative intent - Statutory embargo on grant of bail if accusation is prima facie true - Principle of 'bail is the rule, jail is the exception' does not apply to offences involving terrorist acts - Court must perusal of case diary or final report to form opinion - (Paras 38, 44-48).

(B) Bail - Principle of parity - Applicability - Parity cannot be applied mechanically - Court must consider individual role, involvement in conspiracy, and gravity of offences - Merely noting co-accused granted bail is insufficient to establish entitlement - (Paras 82-84).

(C) Article 21 - Right to Speedy Trial - Prolonged incarceration - In cases of grave offences affecting societal security, delay is not an absolute determinant - Must be balanced against statutory restraints and individual role - (Paras 67-71).

Facts of the case:
The appellant sought bail for a third time regarding charges of terrorist activities, extortion, and attempted murder of law enforcement officials. The lower court rejected the application, citing the severity of the allegations and the appellant's role in the crime. The appellant contended for release based on parity with co-accused, duration of pre-trial detention, and potential delay in trial proceedings.

Findings of Court:
The court found that material on record established a prima facie case against the appellant, detailing an active role in a criminal network and violent resistance against police. It held that the severity of the charges and the specific statutory restrictions required a stringent approach to bail.

Issues: Whether the appellant is entitled to bail based on parity with co-accused, long custody, and trial delay despite serious charges under a special anti-terrorist statute.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that in cases involving serious unlawful activities, the statutory bar on bail is paramount. Parity cannot be invoked when there is a distinct difference in roles and culpability. Furthermore, the constitutional right to liberty is not absolute and must be balanced against the interests of national and societal security; hence, mere delay in trial does not automatically necessitate bail when the legal threshold for rejection is met. Result : Appeal dismissed.

Table of Content
1. summary of case background and procedural history. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
2. parties' contentions on merits, parity, and custody length. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28)
3. recap of previous judicial orders refusing bail. (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33)
4. strict bail criteria under uapa section 43d(5). (Para 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50)
5. application of non-bailable presumption for grave offences. (Para 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68)
6. balancing personal liberty against national/societal interest. (Para 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 77)
7. application of parity principle depending on individual culpability. (Para 78 , 79 , 80 , 81 , 82 , 83 , 84 , 85 , 86 , 87 , 88 , 89)
8. final rejection of bail appeal due to prima facie culpability. (Para 90 , 92 , 93 , 94 , 95 , 96 , 97 , 98 , 99 , 100)

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 09.07.2025 passed in Misc. Cr. Application No.1186 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 in 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. At the very outset, it needs to mention herein that earlier the prayer for bail of the appellant was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 16.04.2024 passed in Cr. Appeal (DB) No.244 of 2024 by a co-ordinate Division Bench of this Court. Thereafter, again the prayer for bail of the appellant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 12.12.2024 passed in Criminal Appeal (DB) No.823 of 2024 on merit by passing a detailed order.

3. 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.

4. 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. 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 t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

2026 Supreme(Jhk) 508

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHISUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, SANJAY PRASAD, JJ.Rajan Sao - AppellantVersusThe State of Jharkhand - RespondentCriminal Appeal (DB) No.57 of 2026Decided On : 07-04-2026

Cases Referred (2)

Judicial Analysis

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, SANJAY PRASAD, JJ.
Rajan Sao - Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand - Respondent
Criminal Appeal (DB) No.57 of 2026
Decided On : 07-04-2026