Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
Prayer:
1. The instant appeal preferred under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 is directed against the order dated 22.09.2025 passed in Misc. Cr. Application No. 1663 of 2025 by learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-XVI-cum-Special Judge, NIA, Ranchi whereby and whereunder the prayer for bail in connection with Special (NIA) Case No. 01 of 2021, RC Case No.-01/2021/NIA/RNC arising out of Balumath P.S. Case No. 234 of 2020 registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 353, 504, 506, 307, 427, 435, 386, 387, 120B, 121A and 216 of the Indian Penal Code Section 25(1)(b), 26, 27 and 35 of the Arms Act, Section 3 & 4 of Explosive Substance Act, Section 10, 13, 16(1)(b), 20 and 23 of UA(P) Act and Section 17 of CLA Act, 1908, has been rejected.
Factual Matrix
2. The brief facts of the case, as per the prosecution version, which required to be enumerated reads hereunder as:-
3. The prosecution case is that initially, the case was instituted in Balumath P.S bearing Balumath P.S case no. 234 of 2020 dated 19.12.2020 on the basis of self-statement of S.I. Rana Bhanu Pratap Singh, officer-in- charge of the said P.S. It is alleged in the FIR that on 18.12.2020 at 19.00 hours, an information was received at Balumath police station that some unknown miscreants were burning vehicles and firing indiscriminately near Check-post no.1 near Tetariyakhad colliery. Thereafter, the officer-in- charge alongwith the police force proceeded from police station to verify such information. At 19.30 hours, when they reached near Tetariyakhad Check post No.1, the miscreants started firing on the police party. The police force retaliated by firing to protect themselves. Thereafter, the miscreants started fleeing from there and managed to escape by taking advantage of night. It is further alleged that the said miscreants had burnt four trucks and one motorcycle and injured four civilians who were sent to hospital for treatment. The remnants of the coal loaded burnt trucks, fragments of a cane bomb with wire, a white colour empty gallon of approx. 02 liters, spent cartridges and three hand written pamphlets containing threats to the transporters and coal companies working in the mining area, which were allegedly written by Pradip Ganjhu @ Mandal @ Prem (A3), were found on the spot which were seized under a seizure list.
4. It is further alleged that upon further inquiry, it revealed that at the instance of gangster Sujit Sinha (A-1) and Aman Sahu @ Aman Sao (A-2), accused Pradip Ganjhu @ Mandal @ Prem (A-3), Shahrukh Ansari and his associates namely Santosh Ganjhu, Bihari Ganjhu, Sakendra Ganjhu, Pramod Ganjhu and others had committed the said occurrence to collect extortion amount from CCL, transporters, contractors and D.O. holders and disrupted the legitimate works. Accordingly, Balumath P.S. case no. 234 of 2020 dated 19.12.2020 was registered against accused Sujit Sinha, Aman Sahu @ Aman Sao, Pradip Ganjhu @ Mandal @ Prem, Santosh Ganjhu, Sakendra Ganjhu, Bihari Ganjhu, Pramod Ganjhu and 5-6 other unknown accused persons for the offence u/s 147, 148, 149, 353, 504, 506, 307, 427, 435, 386, 387, 120B, 121A & 216 of the IPC, section 25(1)(b), 26, 27 & 35 of the Arms Act, sec. 3 & 4 of the Explosive Substance Act, Sec. 17 of the CLA Act and section 10, 13, 16(1)(b), 20 & 23 of the UA(P) Act.
5. Considering the gravity of the offence, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), Government of India, in exercise of powers vested under section 6(5) read with section 8 of the NIA Act 2008 directed the NIA to take up the investigation of the aforesaid case. On the direction of Ministry of Home Affairs, the NIA re-registered case no RC-01/2021/NIA-RNC dated 04.03.2021 against above named accused persons and some unknown for the said offences. Thereafter, the NIA started investigation of the occurrence and submitted five charge sheets including supplementary charge-sheets in this case against total twenty-six accused persons including the accused/petitioner.
6. After investigation NIA submitted 2nd supplementary chargesheet against Pankaj Karmali @ Khetia (A-23), Vikash Anand Ojha @ Abhishek (A-26), Kundan Kumar (A-28) and the present appellant Akash Kumar Roy @ Monu Roy (A-27).
7. The appellant has been apprehended and taken into custody on 18.12.2021, i.e., after taking over the investigation by the NIA and, as such, prayer for bail was made before Special Judge NIA Ranchi by filing Misc. Cr. Application No. 1705 of 2022 but the same had been rejected vide orders dated 20.09.2022 and thereafter, Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1238 of 2022 was preferred before co-ordinate Bench of this Court which had also been dismissed vide order dated 13.02.2023. Thereafter, the present appellant again preferred Misc. Cr. Application No.1415 of 2024 before the Special Judge NIA Ranchi but the same had again been rejected vide order dated 11.06.2024 against which the Cr. Appeal (DB) No.961 of 2024 was preferred before this Court, which was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 06.02.2025.
8. Thereafter, again Misc. Cr. Application No. 1663 of 2025 has been filed by the appellant before the learned Special Judge, NIA Ranchi which has been dismissed vide order dated 22.09.2025, against which the present appeal has been preferred.
Submission on behalf of appellant:
9. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant, has submitted that the impugned order is fit to be quashed and set aside on the ground that no incriminating material has been found to substantiate the involvement of the appellant in the instant case.
10. It has been contended that at the place of occurrence, three hand written pamphlets containing threat to transporters and Coal Company involved in mining were not in the handwriting of the appellant and even the said pamphlets did not contain the signature of the present appellant rather it is alleged to be of the co-accused person, Pradeep Ganjhu.
11. It has also been contended that during the investigation, the investigating officer of the NIA has not brought on record anything to show that the appellant has conspired to the commit the alleged offence.
12. The appellant is neither named in FIR nor any incriminating article has been recovered from his possession.
13. Submission has been made that appellant was apprehended on 18.12.2021 on the basis of suspicion. His confessional statement is said to have been recorded but there is nothing to show that the appellant in any manner participated in the alleged occurrence.
14. It has been contended that the co-accused person, namely, Jahiruddin Ansari has been granted bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 03.01.2023 passed in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 51 of 2022; another co-accused person, namely, Majibul Ansari has also been granted bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 22.03.2023 passed in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 42 of 2023; another co-accused person, namely, Santosh Yadav @ Santosh Kumar Yadav has also been granted bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 18.01.2023 passed in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 204 of 2022; another co- accused person, namely, Santosh Kumar @ Banti Yadav has been granted bail vide order dated 09.11.2022 passed in Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 98 of 2022, and another co-accused, namely, Pritam Kumar @ Chiku Yadav @ Chiku, has been granted the privilege of regular bail vide order dated 22.12.2022 passed in Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 205 of 2022, and another co accused persons, namely, Jasim Ansari & Wasim Ansari, have been granted bail vide order dated 03.01.2023 passed in Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No.435 of 2022, and another co accused, namely, Akash Kumar @ Akash Sahu has been granted bail vide order dated 12.09.2025 passed in Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 669 of 2025, and the case of the appellant is similar to that of the case of the aforementioned co- accused persons.
15. Further, taking the ground of custody submission has been made that the appellant is in custody since 18.12.2021.
16. Further ground has been taken that though charge-sheet has been submitted on 14.06.2022 and charge has been framed way back on 16.06.2023 but case is pending for prosecution evidence and till date out of 345 charge-sheeted witnesses, only 23 charge-sheeted witnesses have been examined and there is no chance of conclusion of trial in near future, due to large number of witnesses and documents in connection with NIA Case.
17. The learned counsel for the appellant on the aforesaid premise has submitted that the order dated 22.09.2025 by which the bail of the present appellant has been rejected by the Special Judge NIA, Ranchi requires interference of this Court and the present appellant may be enlarged on bail.
Submission on behalf of respondent:
18. While on the other hand, Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel appearing for the National Investigation Agency (NIA), has submitted that specific attributability has come against the appellant to the effect that during investigation, it has been disclosed by him while in custody about his role in the criminal conspiracy, planning and execution of the said terror incident and in furtherance of the criminal conspiracy in presence of the independent witnesses has also pointed out the related places.
19. It has also been revealed during investigation that Vikash Anand Ojha @ Abhishek (A-26) from January/February, 2021 to July, 2021 received multiple consignments of arms and ammunition from Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra and provided the present appellant (A-27) and another Kundan Kumar (A-28) and to others who further provided these arms and ammunition to Shahrukh Ansari.
20. It has also been revealed that the said appellant and Kundan Kumar have also arranged a flat in Namkum (Ranchi) for the criminal unlawful activities of the terrorist gang. Both of them facilitated safe stay/harbour to Shahrukh Ansari, the then absconding accused in the instant case in the said flat at Namkum, Ranchi. When the police raided the said flat on 19.07.2021, Kundan Kumar was arrested with the arms and ammunition but Shahrukh Ansari and the present appellant managed to escape from this flat. A separate case No. 187 of 2021 dated 19.07.2021 was also registered by Namkum Police against the present appellant and others.
21. It has been contended by referring to paragraph 17.8, 17.23, 17.24, 17.25, 17.36 and 17.40 of the 2nd supplementary chargesheet wherein specific involvement of the appellant has been surfaced in course of investigation of giving active support to the organization and even the recovery of arms and ammunitions have been made from the flat where the appellant along with Kundan Kumar arranged for the criminal unlawful activities of the terrorist gang and used to facilitate safe stay/harbour to Shahrukh Ansari, the then absconding accused in the instant case.
22. It has been contended by rebutting the argument advanced on behalf of the appellant that the case of the appellant is identical to that of the case of other co-accused persons but herein the allegation as per the chargesheet is that the arms and ammunitions were recovered from the flat which was arranged by the present appellant and one Kundan Kumar for providing safe stay/harbour to the other co-accused person, therefore, the allegation as surfaced against the said co-accused who have been granted bail cannot be said to be identical with the case of the appellant, rather, specific attributability has been surfaced against the present appellant as would be evident from the material surfaced in course of investigation as referred in paragraph 17.8, 17.23, 17.24, 17.25, 17.36 and 17.40 of the 2nd supplementary chargesheet.
23. It is further been stated that the bail of several other co-accused have also been rejected by this Hon'ble Court in Cr. Appl.(DB) No. 133 of 2023 vide order dated 17.05.2023 (Ajay Turi vs. N.I.A.), Cr. Appl.(DB) No. 549 of 2023 vide order dated 08.09.2023 (Babulal Turi vs. N.I.A.), Cr. Appl. (DB) No.781 of 2023 vide order dated 15.02.2024 (Pradip Ganjhu vs. N.I.A.), Cr. Appl.(DB) No. 744 of 2023 vide order dated 28.02.2024 (Vikash Anand vs. N.I.A.), Cr. Appl.(DB) No. 840 of 2025 vide order dated 23.09.2025)(Ajay Turi vs. N.I.A.), Cr. Appl.(DB) No. 781 of 2025 vide order dated 13.10.2025 (Ajay Turi vs. N.I.A.), Cr. Appl.(DB) No. 818 of 2025 vide order dated 04.11.2025 (Babulal Turi vs. N.I.A.), Cr. Appl. (DB) No. 976 of 2025 vide order dated 21.11.2025 (Saif Ansari vs. N.I.A.) and Cr. Appl. (DB) No. 448 of 2025 vide order dated 01.12.2025 (Shankar Yadav vs. N.I.A.).
24. So far delay in trial is concerned, it has been contended that the Hon'ble Supreme Court recently in the case of Gurwinder Singh Versus State of Punjab and Another (2024 SCC OnLine SC 109) has held that for the offences under UAPA "Bail will be an exception and Jail will be the rule" and merely the period of custody and delay in trial will not be a ground for grant of bail.
25. So far as likelihood of delay in the trial due to long list of witnesses is concerned, submission has been made on behalf of NIA that number of witnesses which were 345 in numbers has already been pruned to 127, out of which, 30 witnesses have already been examined as such the plea of the petitioner about the probable delay in the trial is not fit to be accepted.
26. Learned counsel for the respondent has emphatically submitted that the case is at advanced stage, as substantial number of prosecution witnesses i.e., 30 in number has already been examined and if at this stage the appellant would be enlarged on bail, there is every likelihood of influencing the witnesses and tampering with the evidence or may abscond, which would seriously prejudice the fair conduct of the trial.
27. It has further been submitted that the present appellant/accused (A-27) had earlier approached before co-ordinate Bench of this Court seeking identical relief in Cr. Appl. (DB) No. 1238 of 2022, and this Court, vide order dated 13.02.2023, was pleased to dismiss the said appeal on merit, having been satisfied that a prima facie true case exists against the appellant and since herein there is no change in circumstances either on fact or law, therefore prayer for appellant is not fit to be accepted.
28. Thereafter, again another Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 961 of 2024 was filed before this Court which was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 06.02.2025.
29. Mr. Amit Kumar Das, in the aforesaid premise, has submitted that the impugned order dated 22.09.2025, therefore, may not be interfered with.
Analysis
30. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the documents available on record as also the finding recorded by learned court as recorded in the impugned order dated 22.09.2025.
31. It would be evident from the prosecution version that a case being Balumath P.S. Case No. 234/2020 was instituted on information received on 18.12.2020 at the Balumath Police Station against the unknown persons leveling therein the charge of burning vehicles and firing indiscriminately near Check Post No.1 near Tetariakhand Colliery. The miscreants fired on the police party that had rushed to the spot. Accused persons had burnt four trucks one motorcycle and also injured 04 civilians. From the place of occurrence, remnants of the burnt vehicles, fragments of a cane bomb with wire, a white colour empty gallon of approx 02 liters, spent cartridges and three hand written pamphlets containing threats to the transporters and coal companies, involved in the mining area signed by one Pradip Ganjhu were found from the spot. The Police, on enquiry found that Sujit Sinha and Aman Sahu @Aman Sao had conspired with accused Pradeep Ganjhu and his associates namely Santosh Ganjhu, Bihari Ganjhu, Sakendra Ganjhu, Pramod Ganjhu and others to collect extortion from CCL transporters, contractors, DO holders and disruption of legitimate works.
32. Based on the aforesaid allegation, Balumath P.S. case no 234/2020 dated 19.12.2020 was instituted for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 353, 504, 506, 307, 427, 435, 386, 387 and 120B of IPC section 27 of Arms Act, Section 3/4 of the Explosive Substance Act, against accused persons.
33. The Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India directed the NIA to take up the investigation of the Balumath P.S. case no 234/2020 dated 19.12.2020 which was re-registered case no 01/2021/NIA-RNC and consequently 2nd supplementary Chargesheet was submitted against the present appellant arraigned him as accused No.27.
34. It has come in the investigation that the present appellant was a member of Aman Sahu and Sujit Sinha Gang and in furtherance of the criminal conspiracy, he was associated with Kundan Kumar (A-28), the then absconding accused Shahrukh Ansari and provided harbour to him. The investigation has also revealed that, the appellant /accused Akash Kumar Roy @ Akash Roy @ Monu (A-27) also received arms and ammunitions from the accused Vikash Anand Ojha @ Abhishek and further provided into the gang members.
35. The appellant has been apprehended and taken into custody on 18.12.2021, and accordingly, prayer for bail was made before Special Judge NIA Ranchi by filing Misc. Cr. Application No. 1705 of 2022 but the same had been rejected vide order dated 20.09.2022 and thereafter, Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1238 of 2022 was preferred before the co-ordinate Bench of this Court which had also been dismissed by considering all the factual aspects on merit vide order dated 13.02.2023. For ready reference the relevant paragraphs of the aforesaid order i.e. order dated 13.02.2023 are being referred as under:
“8. We have considered the rival submissions and have also perused the affidavits including the second supplementary charge-sheet.
9. The role of the appellant has been described in the second supplementary charge-sheet in the following manner:-
“17.23 During the investigation, it has come on record that Vikash Anand Ojha @ Abhishek (A-26) from January/February, 2021 to July 2021, received multiple consignments of arms and ammunition from MP and Maharashtra and provided to Akash Kumar Roy @ Monu (A-27), Kundan Kumar (A-28) and others in the name of Abhishek. Akash Kumar Roy @ Monu (A-27), Kundan Kumar (A- 28) further provided these arms and ammunition to Shahrukh Ansari, the then absconding accused and other gang members. Vikash Anand Ojha @ Abhishek (A-26) was arrested by a team of Special Cell, Delhi Police from Chopda, Maharashtra in its case No. 225 of 2021 dated 26.08.2021 having in possession 20 semi- automatic/country made pistols, 50 live rounds, one Xiaomi smart phone alongwith 02 Airtel Sim cards.
“17.24 Investigation has revealed that Akash Kumar Roy @ Monu (A-27), Kundan Kumar (A-28) also arranged a flat at Namkum (Ranchi) for the criminal activities of the terrorist gang. Both of them facilitated safe stay/harbor to Shahrukh Ansari, the then absconding accused in the instant case in the said flat at Namkum, Ranchi. In this flat, accused Vikash Anand Ojha @ Abhishek (A- 26) visited the said flat at Namkum, Ranchi and supplied arms and ammunition during his visit in June/July 2021. On 19.07.2021 this flat was raided by Police of PS Namkum and arrested Kundan Kumar (A-28) with the arms and ammunition supplied by Vikash Anand Ojha @ Abhishek (A-26). Shahrukh Ansari and Akash Kumar Roy@ Monu (A-27) managed to escape from this flat. A separate case no. 187/2021, dated 19.07.2021 was registered by Namkum Police agasint Akash Kumar Roy @ Monu (A-27), Kundan (A-28) and others.
17.25. Investigation has revealed that Akash Kumar Roy @ Monu (A-27) stated that he came in contact with Sujit Sinha while he was running Food Valley Restaurant at Jail More, Ranchi. In 2017, he received a WhatsApp call from Sujit Sinha from Hazaribagh Jail in which, Sujit Sinha requested him to bring his wife Riya Sinha to Hazaribagh Jail fro meeting. During this process, Sujit Sinha asked him to work with him and to demand extortion in his name. For this purpose, Akash Kumar Roy @ Monu (A-27) arranged SIM cards from Jamshedpur and distributed the same amongst the gang members. Thereafter, he along with other gang members demanded extortion from businessmen of Palamu, Daltonganj. He was arrested by Palamu Police on the complaint of owner of Palamu Agency, In 2019 also he was arrested by Jamshedpur Police in forged SIM card case which were arranged by him for the purpose of demanding extortion.
10. The aforesaid findings would indicate about the appellant dealing in consignment of arms and ammunition procured from else where with the active connivance of the other accused persons named therein in order to further the activities of the terrorist gang. From the flat taken by the appellant to indulge in subversive activities arms and ammunition were recovered from co-accused Kundan Kumar. Shahrukh Ansari seems to be one of the main players in the Tetariakhad incident and he was given shelter in the flat of the appellant. The incidental episode of clandestinely dealing in arms and ammunition would butteress the allegation that the appellant was knowing about the purposes of such activity as well as the credentials of Shahrukh Ansari. Another additional feature to the involvement of the appellant is the statement of protected witness “C” who has stated about the flat arranged by the appellant based on forged ID proof. He has also identified Shahrukh Ansari through a photograph while stating that just before the raid by the police he had seen Shahrukh Ansari present in the flat along with the appellant. These facts go to show the undeviating nature of involvement of the appellant in being a member of a terrorist gang and participating in terrorist activities.
The same makes out a prima facie case in terms of Section 43(d)(5) of U.A.P. Act. Though it appears that some of the co-accused have been granted bail by this Court but the case of the appellant is on altogether different footing.
11. Since the learned court below in the impugned order dated 20.09.2022 has appreciated the materials on record while rejecting the prayer for bail of the appellant, we decline to interfere in the same and consequently this appeal is dismissed.
12. Pending I.A.(s), if any, also stands disposed of.”
36. From the perusal of the aforementioned paragraphs of the order dated 13.02.2023 it is evident that the co-ordinate Bench of this Court has already considered all the plea of the present appellant / accused (A-27) while rejecting his earlier bail application and made out a prima facie case against the present appellant. It is further evident from aforesaid order that while rejecting the prayer of the present appellant has taken into consideration the allegation levelled against him and the specific attributability surfaced against the present appellant in course of investigation.
37. Thereafter, again Misc. Cr. Application No. 1415 of 2024 has been filed by the appellant before the learned Special Judge, NIA Ranchi which has been dismissed vide order dated 11.06.2024, against which another Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 961 of 2024 was filed which was dismissed as withdrawn.
38. Thereafter, again Misc. Cr. Application No. 1663 of 2025 has been filed by the appellant before the learned Special Judge, NIA Ranchi which has been dismissed vide order dated 22.09.2025, against which present appeal has been preferred.
39. Since no fresh ground or change in circumstance is available herein therefore, the learned counsel for appellant has taken the ground of long custody i.e. about 4 years and 3 months approximately and probable delay in conclusion of trial has also been taken as one of the grounds. The learned counsel for the appellant has also raised the issue of parity and submitted that since other co-accused persons have been granted bail, as such, the appellant herein also deserves to be released on bail by interfering with the order impugned.
40. While on the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has argued that ample evidence has been collected in course of investigation as would appear from paragraph 17.8, 17.23, 17.24, 17.25, 17.36 and 17.40 of the 2nd supplementary chargesheet wherefrom it is evident that apart from harbouring the terrorist, huge quantity of arms and ammunitions were recovered from the flat which was arranged for such unlawful activity by the appellant along with one Kundan Kumar. The ground, therefore, has been agitated that the case of the appellant is not identical to the said co-accused against whom parity has been claimed rather herein apart from harbouring the accused, huge quantity of arms and ammunitions were also recovered from the flat which was arranged for such unlawful activity by the appellant along with one Kundan Kumar.
41. The ground has also been taken that the case of the appellant is similar to that of accused Kundan Kumar whose bail application has already been rejected vide order dated 11.03.2026 passed in Cr. Appeal (DB) 1508 of 2025, against whom the allegation is similar to that of the appellant as would appear from paragraph 17.23, 17.24 and 17.36 of the chargesheet.
42. Further ground has been taken that list of witnesses has already been pruned to 127 in number and out of which 30 of the witnesses has already been examined, therefore, submission has been made that if at this stage, bail would be granted there is every likelihood of misusing the same.
43. Adverting to the contention of the learned counsel for the parties, admittedly herein earlier the prayer of the appellant for bail has already been rejected on merit therefore, the present appeal has been filed on the ground of period of custody and probable delay in trial and in addition thereto ground of parity has also been raised.
44. In the aforesaid backdrop it requires to refer herein that the statutory mandate contained under Section 43D (5) of the UA(P) Act 1967 imposes a stringent embargo upon the release of an accused charged with such grave offences on bail, unless the twin conditions stipulated therein are satisfied. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gurwinder Singh (supra), wherein after considering the judgment in Union of India v. Κ.Α. Najeeb (2021) 3 SCC 713, it was reiterated that the statutory parameters contained in Section 43D(5) of the UA(P) Act 1967 must be applied while considering bail in cases involving serious offences under the Act. It has been held that only where the allegations are found to be prima facie untrue, on the basis of the material collected during investigation, can the prayer for bail be considered, and conversely, where the allegations appear prima facie true, the privilege of bail cannot be extended.
45. In the present case, it is apparent that the appellant / accused Akash Kumar Roy @ Monu (A-27) has been charge-sheeted for offences punishable under Sections of the UA(P)Act 1967, having maximum punishment of imprisonment for life.
46. Although, the culpability of the present accused/appellant has already been dealt with by this Court in order dated 13.02.2023 but at the cost of repetition same is being reiterated herein in precise form. It has come in the 2nd supplementary charge-sheet that the appellant /accused Akash Kumar Roy @ Monu (A-27) was a member of Aman Sahu and Sujit Sinha Gang and in furtherance of the criminal conspiracy, he was associated with Kundan Kumar (A-28), the then absconding accused Shahrukh Ansari and provided harbour to him. During the course of investigation, it has been revealed that the appellant Akash Kumar Roy @ Monu (A-27) along with accused Kundan Kumar (A-28) has arranged a flat at Namkum (Ranchi) for the criminal activities of the gang. Both of them facilitated safe stay/harbour to Shahrukh Ansari, the then absconding accused in the instant case in the said flat at Namkum, Ranchi. In this flat, accused Vikash Anand Ojha @ Abhishek(A-26) visited the said flat at Namkum, Ranchi and supplied arms and ammunition during his visit in June/July 2021.
47. On 19.07.2021, this flat was raided by Police of P.S. Namkum and arrested co-accused Kundan Kumar (A-28) with the arms and ammunition supplied by Vikash Anand Ojha @ Abhishek(A-26). Shahrukh Ansari and the present appellant, namely, Akash Kumar Roy @ Monu (A-27) managed to escape from this flat. A separate case no.187/2021, dated 19.07.2021 was registered by Namkum Police against the appellant/accused Akash Kumar Roy @ Monu and (A-27) and Kundan Kumar (A-28) and others. During the course of further investigation, it has been stated by the appellant that he came in contact with Sujit Sinha and in the year 2017, he received WhatsApp call from him from Hazaribagh Jail and was asked to demand extortion in his name. For the said purpose, the appellant arranged SIM cards from Jamshedpur and distributed the same amongst the gang members and thereafter, he along with the other gang members, demanded extortion from businessmen of Palamu, Daltonganj.
48. Further from the order dated 13.02.2023 it is evident that the co- ordinate Bench of this Court has already considered all the pleas of the appellant / accused Akash Kumar Roy @ Monu (A-27) and while rejecting his earlier bail application had found that a prima facie case is made out in terms U.A.P. Act 1967 against the present appellant.
49. It needs to refer herein that the principles of res judicata and such analogous principles although are not applicable in a criminal proceeding, but the courts are bound by the doctrine of judicial discipline and the findings of a higher court or a coordinate bench must receive serious consideration at the hands of the court entertaining a bail application at a later stage when the same had been rejected earlier. In such an event, the courts must give due weight to the grounds which weighed with the former or higher court in rejecting the bail application.
50. Herein, there is no material change in the fact situation so far the culpability of the present appellant is concerned but ground of custody and delay in trial as also issue of parity has been raised herein.
51. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to refer herein that only the long incarceration or delay in trial is not the ground to be looked into for enlarging the accused on bail, rather, the accusation so made against the accused persons as also societal impact is also to be taken care of.
52. It requires to refer herein that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gurwinder Singh v. State of Punjab (supra) taking into consideration the ratio of judgment of Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb, (supra) has observed that mere delay in trial pertaining to grave offences as one involved in the instant case cannot be used as a ground to grant bail, for ready reference, the relevant paragraph is being quoted as under:
"46. As already discussed, the material available on record indicates the involvement of the appellant in furtherance of terrorist activities backed by members of banned terrorist organisation involving exchange of large quantum of money through different channels which needs to be deciphered and therefore in such a scenario if the appellant is released on bail there is every likelihood that he will influence the key witnesses of the case which might hamper the process of justice. Therefore, mere delay in trial pertaining to grave offences as one involved in the instant case cannot be used as a ground to grant bail. Hence, the aforesaid argument on behalf of the appellant cannot be accepted."
53. The Hon'ble Apex Court in its recent judgment in the case of Gulfisha Fatima versus State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1 while appreciating the implication of Article 21 vis-vis Section 43D (5) of the Act 1967 and taking into the consideration the ratio laid down in the case of Gurwinder Singh v. State of Punjab (supra) has categorically observed that If prosecutions alleging offences which implicate the sovereignty, integrity, or security of the State, delay does not operate as a trump card that automatically displaces statutory restraint, for ready reference, the relevant paragraphs of the aforesaid judgment are being quoted as under:
" 32. In Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb2, this Court recognised a constitutional safeguard that cannot be ignored: statutory restrictions cannot be applied so as to render the guarantee of personal liberty illusory. It was held that where the trial is not likely to commence or conclude within a reasonable period, constitutional courts retain the jurisdiction to grant bail notwithstanding statutory restraints. The decision thus operates as a protection against unconscionable detention and there can be no second opinion on the said principle.
33. The same decision, however, does not indicate as laying down a mechanical rule under which the mere passage of time becomes determinative in every case arising under a special statute. The jurisprudence of this Court does not support a construction whereby delay simpliciter eclipses a statutory regime enacted by Parliament to address offences of a special category.
35. The proper constitutional question, therefore, is not whether Article 21 is superior to Section 43D (5). The proper question is how Article 21 is to be applied where Parliament has expressly conditioned the grant of bail in relation to offences alleged to implicate national security. The law does not contemplate an either-or approach. Nor does it contemplate an unstructured blending of statutory and constitutional considerations. What is required is disciplined judicial scrutiny that gives due regard to both.
47. A closely allied consideration is the role attributed to the accused. Prosecutions under the UAPA may allege varying degrees of participation, ranging from peripheral acts to strategic, organisational, or ideological centrality. The constitutional significance of prolonged incarceration cannot be assessed uniformly for all accused regardless of role. Where the attribution suggests a central or organising role in the alleged design, the need for circumspection before constitutional intervention displaces a statutory embargo is correspondingly greater. Conversely, where the role is peripheral or episodic, prolonged incarceration may more readily assume a punitive character.
56. It therefore becomes necessary to state, with clarity, the governing approach. In prosecutions alleging offences which implicate the sovereignty, integrity, or security of the State, delay does not operate as a trump card that automatically displaces statutory restraint. Rather, delay serves as a trigger for heightened judicial scrutiny. The outcome of such scrutiny must be determined by a proportional and contextual balancing of legally relevant considerations, including (i) the gravity and statutory character of the offence alleged, (ii) the role attributed to the accused within the alleged design or conspiracy, (iii) the strength of the prima facie case as it emerges at the limited threshold contemplated under the special statute, and (iv) the 2026:JHHC:2958-DB extent to which continued incarceration, viewed cumulatively in the facts of the case, has become demonstrably disproportionate so as to offend the guarantee of personal liberty under Article 21.
58. In Gurwinder Singh v. State of Punjab, this Court expressly cautioned against the mechanical invocation of prolonged incarceration as a ground for bail in cases involving serious offences under special enactments. The judgment reiterates that the gravity of the offence, the legislative context, and the prima facie material on record cannot be eclipsed merely because the trial has taken time.
59. This Court in CBI v. Dayamoy Mahato reiterated that while Article 21 remains paramount, it does not operate in a vacuum divorced from competing constitutional interests. The Court emphasized that claims to liberty must be examined in the totality of circumstances, particularly where allegations implicate organised criminality or matters of public interest. Delay, though undoubtedly significant, was held not to assume the character of an absolute or solitary determinant. The emphasis, once again, was on structured judicial reasoning rather than on formulaic outcomes."
54. Thus, on the basis of the aforesaid settled position of law, it is evident that mere delay in trial pertaining to grave offences, as one involved in the instant case, cannot be used as a ground to grant bail.
55. There is no dispute and it cannot be disputed that the jurisprudence of Article 21 has, as it develops, recognized various facets to be intrinsic to the right to life and liberty such as speedy trial, timely completion of investigation, fair trial etc. but at the same time circumspection in granting the relief of bail in offences that harmful to society such as in this case, stems from a place of concern, understandably legitimate at that, about public order, societal security, overall peace and the general deterrent force in criminal law.
56. The scales of Justice must balance on the one hand-the constitutionally consecrated and jealously guarded right under Article 21 and on the other, the recognition that individual liberty is not absolute and is subject to just exceptions i.e. the paramount considerations of national interest and societal interest.
57. There can be no manner of doubt on the proposition that Article 21 rights are placed on a pedestal, and rightly so, at the same time, though, the individual cannot always be the centre of attention. We observe, therefore, that while Article 21 rights must always be protected, but however, in cases where the security of the society and nation is called into question, the long incarceration cannot be the sole ground of consideration.
58. The act of the accused persons must be looked at, on the whole, and all relevant factors must be given due consideration while granting or denying bail. Needless to add, any Court seized of bail application(s) arising out of such offences must record, in their order the reasons and factors that weighed with them in the ultimate outcome.
59. In view of the discussion made above it is the settled fact that the rights of an individual are always subservient to the nation/societal interest.
60. Further, in the case of Gurwinder Singh vs. State of Punjab (supra) and in the case of the Union of India vs. Barakathullah etc., reported in 2024 INSC 452, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has expressed its concern to the threat raised by terrorist organizations and held that where the accusations against the respondents are prima facie true, the mandate contained in the proviso to Section 43D(5) of the UA(P) Act would become applicable and the accused would not be released on bail.
61. Herein, the learned counsel for the respondent NIA has submitted at Bar that in the instant case number of witnesses which were 345 in numbers has already been pruned to 127, out of which, 30 witnesses have already been examined, therefore taking into consideration the aforesaid submission, the apprehension of appellant in probable delay in trial is not fit to be accepted.
62. Further considering the paragraph 09 of the counter affidavit wherein it has been mentioned by the prosecuting agency that if the present appellant is allowed to be released on bail, then, he will get all opportunities to tamper with the evidence as well as influence the witnesses or he may abscond, for ready reference the relevant paragraph of the counter affidavit is being quoted as under:
“09. That, it is stated that the trial in this instant case is at advanced stage and as many as 23 witnesses out of 127 (after pruning) witnesses have already been examined in this case. It is submitted that at this stage, if the appellant/accused is allowed to be released on bail, then he will get all opportunities to tamper with the evidence as well as influence the witnesses or he may absond.”
63. Further, there is a serious allegation against the appellant / accused Akash Kumar Roy @ Monu (A-27) that he was a member of Aman Sahu and Sujit Sinha Gang and in furtherance of the criminal conspiracy, he was associated with Kundan Kumar, the then absconding accused Shahrukh Ansari and provided harbour to him. The investigation has also revealed that, the appellant /accused Akash Kumar Roy @ Monu (A-27) also received arms and ammunitions from the accused Vikash Anand Ojha @ Abhishek and further provided into the gang members.
64. Thus, on the basis of discussion made hereinabove, the contention of learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is eligible for bail on the ground of custody or delay in trial, is not fit to be accepted.
65. Further, the learned counsel for the appellant has raised the issue of parity and has submitted that the other co-accused person who are similarly placed have already been directed to be released on bail, therefore the prayer of the petitioner is fit to be accepted.
66. It is evident from the averment made in the memo of appeal that the co-accused person, namely, Jahiruddin Ansari has been granted bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 03.01.2023 passed in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 51 of 2022; another co-accused person, namely, Majibul Ansari has also been granted bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 22.03.2023 passed in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 42 of 2023; another co-accused person, namely, Santosh Yadav @ Santosh Kumar Yadav has also been granted bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 18.01.2023 passed in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 204 of 2022; another co-accused person, namely, Santosh Kumar @ Banti Yadav has been granted bail vide order dated 09.11.2022 passed in Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 98 of 2022, and another co-accused, namely, Pritam Kumar @ Chiku Yadav @ Chiku, has been granted bail vide order dated 22.12.2022 passed in Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 205 of 2022, and another co accused persons, namely, Jasim Ansari & Wasim Ansari, have been granted bail vide order dated 03.01.2023 passed in Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No.435 of 2022, and another co-accused person, namely, Akash Kumar @ Akash Sahu has been granted the privilege of regular bail vide order dated 12.09.2025 passed in Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 669 of 2025, and the case of the appellant is similar to that of the case aforementioned co-accused.
67. It has further been contended that the allegation as per the chargesheet is that the arms and ammunitions were recovered from the flat which was arranged by appellant Akash Roy @ Monu (A-27) and Kundan Kumar (A- 28) at Namkum (Ranchi) for the criminal activities of the terrorist gang and both of them facilitated safe stay/harbor to Shahrukh Ansari, therefore, the allegation as surfaced against said co-accused who have been granted bail cannot be said to be identical with the case of the appellant, rather, the case of the appellant is similar to that of Kundan Kumar (A-28) as would be evident from the material surfaced in course of investigation as referred in paragraph 17.8, 17.23, 17.24, 17.25, 17.36 and 17.40 of the 2nd supplementary chargesheet and the prayer for bail of the said co-accused i.e. Kundar Kumar has already been rejected by this Court vide order dated 11.03.2026 passed in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1508 of 2025.
68. The learned counsel for NIA has further submitted that the bail of several co-accused persons has also been rejected by this Hon'ble Court in Cr. Appl.(DB) No. 133 of 2023 vide order dated 17.05.2023 (Ajay Turi vs. N.I.A.), Cr. Appl.(DB) No. 549 of 2023 vide order dated 08.09.2023 (Babulal Turi vs. N.I.A.), Cr. Appl. (DB) No.781 of 2023 vide order dated 15.02.2024 (Pradip Ganjhu vs. N.I.A.), Cr. Appl.(DB) No. 744 of 2023 vide order dated 28.02.2024 (Vikash Anand vs. N.I.A.), Cr. Appl.(DB) No. 840 of 2025 vide order dated 23.09.2025)(Ajay Turi vs. N.I.A.), Cr. Appl.(DB) No. 781 of 2025 vide order dated 13.10.2025 (Ajay Turi vs. N.I.A.), Cr. Appl.(DB) No. 818 of 2025 vide order dated 04.11.2025 (Babulal Turi vs. N.I.A.), Cr. Appl. (DB) No. 976 of 2025 vide order dated 21.11.2025 (Saif Ansari vs. N.I.A.) and Cr. Appl. (DB) No. 448 of 2025 vide order dated 01.12.2025 (Shankar Yadav vs. N.I.A.).
69. In the aforesaid context, it needs to refer herein that the law is well settled that the principle of parity is to be applied if the case of the fact is exactly similar, then only the principle of parity will be applied in the matter of passing order but if there is difference in between the facts, then, the principle of parity, is not to be applied.
70. It is further settled connotation of law that Court cannot exercise its powers in a capricious manner and has to consider the totality of circumstances before granting bail and by only simply saying that another accused has been granted bail, is not sufficient to determine whether a case for grant of bail on the basis of parity has been established.
71. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Tarun Kumar Versus Assistant Director Directorate of Enforcement, reported in (2023) SCC OnLine SC 1486 has observed that parity is not the law and while applying the principle of parity, the Court is required to focus upon the role attached to the accused whose application is under consideration.
72. It is further settled connotation of law that Court cannot exercise its powers in a capricious manner and has to consider the totality of circumstances before granting bail and by simply saying that another accused has been granted bail is not sufficient to determine whether a case for grant of bail on the basis of parity has been established. Reference in this regard may be made to the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ramesh Bhavan Rathod vs. Vishanbhai Hirabhai Makwana, (2021) 6 SCC 230 wherein it has been held as under:
"25. We are constrained to observe that the orders passed by the High Court granting bail fail to pass muster under the law. They are oblivious to, and innocent of, the nature and gravity of the alleged offences and to the severity of the punishment in the event of conviction. In Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P. [Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P., (2014) 16 SCC 508 : (2015) 3 SCC (Cri) 527], this Court has held that while applying the principle of parity, the High Court cannot exercise its powers in a capricious manner and has to consider the totality of circumstances before granting bail. This Court observed :(SCC p. 515, para 17)
"17. Coming to the case at hand, it is found that when a stand was taken that the second respondent was a history sheeter, it was imperative on the part of the High Court to scrutinise every aspect and not capriciously record that the second respondent is entitled to be admitted to bail on the ground of parity. It can be stated with absolute certitude that it was not a case of parity and, therefore, the impugned order [Mitthan Yadav v. State of U.P., 2014 SCC OnLine All 16031] clearly exposes the non application of mind. That apart, as a matter of fact it has been brought on record that the second respondent has been charge-sheeted in respect of number of other heinous offences. The High Court has failed to take note of the same.Therefore, the order has to pave the path of extinction, for its approval by this Court would tantamount to travesty of justice, and accordingly we set it aside."
26. Another aspect of the case which needs emphasis is the manner in which the High Court has applied the principle of parity. By its two orders both dated 21-12- 2020 [Pravinbhai Hirabhai Koli v. State of Gujarat, 2020 SCC OnLine Guj 2986] , [Khetabhai Parbatbhai Makwana v. State of Gujarat, 2020 SCC OnLine Guj 2988] , the High Court granted bail to Pravin Koli (A-10) and Kheta Parbat Koli (A- 15). Parity was sought with Sidhdhrajsinh Bhagubha Vaghela (A-13) to whom bail was granted on 22- 10-2020 [Siddhrajsinh Bhagubha Vaghela v. State of Gujarat, 2020 SCC OnLine Guj 2985] on the ground (as the High Court recorded) that he was "assigned similar role of armed with stick (sic)". Again, bail was granted to Vanraj Koli (A16) on the ground that he was armed with a wooden stick and on the ground that Pravin (A-10), Kheta (A-15) and Sidhdhrajsinh (A-13) who were armed with sticks had 42 been granted bail. The High Court has evidently misunderstood the central aspect of what is meant by parity. Parity while granting bail must focus upon the role of the accused. Merely observing that another accused who was granted bail was armed with a similar weapon is not sufficient to determine whether a case for the grant of bail on the basis of parity has been established. In deciding the aspect of parity, the role attached to the accused, their position in relation to the incident and to the victims is of utmost importance. The High Court has proceeded on the basis of parity on a simplistic assessment as noted above, which again cannot pass muster under the law."
73. In the backdrop of the aforesaid settled legal position this Court has gone through the 2nd supplementary charge-sheet and other material available on record.
74. The supplementary chargesheet has been examined by this Court in order to assess as has been contended on behalf of the NIA that the case of the appellant is similar to that of accused Kundan Kumar by which this Court is in agreement with such submission by going through the incriminating material collected in course of investigation mentioned in paragraph 17.8, 17.23, 17.24, 17.25, 17.36 and 17.40 of the supplementary chargesheet. The complicity which has been found of the appellant is similar to that of the accused Kundan Kumar (A-28).
75. The appellant was found to be along Kundan Kumar from January/February, 2021 to July, 2021, the period in which multiple consignments of arms and ammunitions from MP and Maharashtra were received and provided to Akash Kumar Roy @ Monu (A-27), the appellant of the instant appeal and Kundan Kumar (A-28).
76. It has also come in the aforesaid paragraph that Akash Kumar Roy @ Monu (A-27) and Kundan Kumar (A-28) also arranged a flat at Namkum (Ranchi) for the criminal activities of the terrorist gang and both of them facilitated safe stay/harbor to Shahrukh Ansari.
77. The aforesaid flat, which was arranged by Akash Kumar Roy @ Monu (A-27) and Kundan Kumar (A-28) at Namkum (Ranchi) for the criminal activities of the terrorist gang and facilitating safe stay/harbor to Shahrukh Ansari was raided by the Namkum Police on 19.07.2021 and recovery of arms and ammunitions supplied by Vikash Anand Ojha was made therefrom.
78. It has come under paragraph 17.36 that the protected witness "C" stated that Akash Kumar Roy @ Monu Roy (A-27) and Kundan Kumar (A- 28) arranged a flat in Namkum, Ranchi on the basis of forged I/D proof. He saw other persons with present appellant Akash Kumar Roy @Monu Roy (A-27) and Kundan Kumar (A-28) at this flat. During the photo identification proceeding in presence of independent witnesses, protected witness "C" identified the photograph of Vikash Anand Ojha @ Abhishek (A-26) and stated that in the month of June/July 2021, he saw him with Akash Kumar Roy @ Monu Roy (A-27) and Kundan Kumar (A-28) in the said flat. He also identified the photograph of Shahrukh Ansari and stated that he saw him before the raid by Namkum Police in this flat, this person was also present at the said flat in Namkum with Akash Kumar Roy Monu Roy (A-27) and Kundan Kumar (A-28).
79. Therefore, from the material which has come in course of investigation basis upon which the 2nd supplementary chargesheet has been submitted, it would be evident that the complicity of the appellant is similar to that of Kundan Kumar whose bail has already been rejected by this Court vide order dated 11.03.2026 passed in Criminal Appeal (DB) No.1508 of 2025.
80. The complicity of the other said co-accused who has been directed to be released on bail, there is no allegation of receiving arms and ammunitions in huge quantity against them and further culpability of the said co-accused persons in alleged commission of crime is also different in comparison to that of the present appellant.
81. This Court, in view of the principle of parity as discussed hereinabove and taking into consideration the material available against the present appellant and also the culpability of the present appellant in alleged commission of crime is of the view that the principle of parity is not fit to be applied herein.
82. Thus, this Court, merely on the basis of the custody/delay in trial by taking the ground of violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the same since has already been dealt with by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gurwinder Singh (supra) even after taking into consideration the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of K.A. Najeeb (supra), therefore, is of the view that the parameter which statutorily has been provided under Section 43D(5) is to be taken into consideration for the purpose of consideration of bail, if the allegation as per the material collected in course of investigation is found to be prima- facie untrue then only prayer for bail, can be considered. While, if the allegation has been found to be prima-facie true, the privilege of bail cannot be granted.
83. This Court, based upon the aforesaid reason, is of the view that the order passed by the learned court while rejecting the prayer for bail, suffers from no infirmity.
84. On basis of the discussion made hereinabove and taking into consideration that this Court has earlier expressed its view on merit with regard to the prayer for grant of bail of the present appellant and further there is no vital change in circumstances as no fresh ground has been agitated herein as also taking into consideration the submission advanced on behalf of the respondent-NIA that every endevour has been taken to conclude the trial by pruning the number of the witnesses substantially, this Court is of the view that the order impugned dated 22.09.2025 passed in Misc. Cr. Application No. 1663 of 2025 requires no interference.
85. Accordingly, the instant appeal fails and is, dismissed.
86. Pending Interlocutory Application(s), if any, also stands dismissed.
87. It is made clear that any observation made herein will not prejudice the case of the appellant in course of trial and the view as expressed by this Court is only limited to the instant appeal.
 |
This Product is Licensed to , |