The Jharkhand High Court has refused to grant bail to an accused in the 2020 Tetariakhad Colliery terror attack case, holding that the prosecution materials, including the statements of protected witnesses identifying him through photographs, prima facie established his involvement. The Court also held that the appellant's case was distinguishable from those of co-accused who had been granted bail.

A Division Bench of Justice Rongon Mukhopadhyay and Justice Arun Kumar Rai dismissed the appeal filed by Pankaj Karmali @ Khetia @ Pankaj Kumar Karmali against the order of the Special NIA Court rejecting his bail application.

The prosecution case relates to an incident on 18 December 2020, when unknown persons allegedly set vehicles on fire, opened indiscriminate firing near Check Post No. 1 at Tetariakhad Colliery, attacked a police party, injured four civilians, and left behind remnants of burnt vehicles, can bomb fragments, spent cartridges, and handwritten pamphlets threatening transporters and coal companies.

During investigation, it was alleged that gangster Sujit Sinha and Aman Sahu had conspired with Pradeep Ganjhu and others to disrupt government work and carry out extortion. The Ministry of Home Affairs subsequently transferred the investigation to the National Investigation Agency, which re-registered the case and filed a supplementary chargesheet against the appellant.

Appearing for the appellant, Mrs. Saumya Pandey submitted that the appellant had been implicated only on the basis of the confession of a co-accused. She argued that several co-accused had already been granted bail, that the appellant had remained in custody since 3 November 2022, and that there was no likelihood of the trial concluding in the near future.

The Court, however, noted that the appellant had been arrayed as Accused No. 23 in the second supplementary chargesheet and that the chargesheet contained detailed allegations regarding his role in the terror attack. It observed that protected prosecution witnesses had identified the appellant through photographs as being present at the scene of occurrence. The Bench further noted that coordinate Benches had already rejected the bail applications of other accused similarly identified by protected witnesses.

The Court also took note of the appellant's criminal antecedents, observing that he was allegedly involved in a kidnapping case. In these circumstances, it held that the appellant's case stood on a different footing from those co-accused who had been granted bail.

Holding that the appellant's culpability in the Tetariakhad Colliery terror incident was evident from the material collected during investigation, the Division Bench declined to interfere with the order of the Special NIA Court and dismissed the appeal.

Case Title: Pankaj Karmali @ Khetia @ Pankaj Kumar Karmali v. Union of India

Case Number: Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 529 of 2026.

Appearance: Mrs. Saumya Pandey for the Appellant. Mr. Amit Kumar Das for the Respondent.

Click Here To Read/Download Order