'Mere Delay In Trial Cannot Be Used As Grounds For Bail': Jharkhand High Court Refuses Bail To UAPA Accused

The Jharkhand High Court recently refused to grant bail to an accused booked under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, observing that mere delay in trial or prolonged custody cannot by itself be a ground for granting bail.A Division Bench of Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Gautam Kumar Choudhary was hearing an appeal filed under Section 21(1) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, challenging the order dated 20 September 2025 passed by the Additional Judicial Commissioner-XVI-cum-Special Judge, NIA, Ranchi. By the impugned order, the trial court had rejected the appellant's bail application in 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.The FIR had been registered under several provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, the Arms Act, 1959, the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, and the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1908.Background:According to the prosecution, the Balumath police station received information that around 7 PM on December 18, 2020, unknown persons were burning vehicles and firing indiscriminately near Check Post No. 1 close to Tetariakhand Colliery. When the police reached the spot, the assailants allegedly opened fire at the police party. It was alleged that the accused persons burnt four trucks and one motorcycle and injured four civilians. From the spot, the police recovered remnants of burnt vehicles, fragments of a cane bomb with wire, a white-coloured empty gallon of approximately two litres, spent cartridges, and three handwritten pamphlets containing threats to transporters and coal companies operating in the mining area. The pamphlets were allegedly signed by Pradeep Ganjhu (A-3).During the investigation, it was further revealed that gangster Sujit Sinha (A-1) and Aman Sahu @ Aman Sao (A-2) had allegedly conspired with Pradeep Ganjhu (A-3) and others to collect extortion from CCL transporters, contractors, and leaseholders and to disrupt government works in the mining area.The present appellant was arrayed as Accused No. 28 in the chargesheet and was arrested on 19 July 2021. The record showed that the appellant had earlier filed multiple bail applications, which were either dismissed on merits or withdrawn.Submissions:On behalf of the appellant, it was contended that he was neither named in the FIR nor was any incriminating material recovered from his possession. It was further argued that apart from the allegation of harbouring terrorists (introduced only in the second supplementary chargesheet) no strong material had been produced during the investigation by the NIA, and the trial court had failed to consider this aspect.The appellant also claimed parity with certain co-accused who had been granted bail. Additionally, it was argued that the appellant had been in custody since July 19, 2021, and the trial had been substantially delayed, with the evidence of witnesses yet to be concluded. It was submitted that given the large number of witnesses and documents in the NIA case, there was little likelihood of the trial concluding in the near future.Opposing the appeal, the National Investigation Agency (NIA) submitted that specific material connected the appellant with the offence. It was argued that the appellant had been arrested from Swanti Kundan Enclave by the Namkum Police, and six country-made pistols and 27 cartridges were recovered from the flat where he was present, which formed the basis for his arraignment as Accused No. 28.The agency further submitted that the investigation had revealed that the appellant had actively supported the organisation, and the recovery of arms and ammunition from the premises where he was present established his involvement.Court's Reasoning:The Court noted that it had previously considered the pleas raised by the present appellant, Kundan Kumar (A-28), while rejecting his earlier bail application, and had already found that a prima facie case was made out against him in terms of Section 43D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. Addressing the requirements under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA, the Court reiterated that bail can be granted only where the allegations are found to be prima facie untrue based on the material collected during investigation. Conversely, where the allegations appear prima facie true, the benefit of bail cannot be extended. Applying this standard, the Court observed that the appellant had been chargesheeted for offences under the UAPA carrying a maximum punishment of life imprisonment, and the materials placed on record disclosed a prima facie case against him. Accordingly, the Court declined to grant bail.On the question of parity, the Bench observed that the appellant's case was not identical to that of the co-accused who had been granted bail. The Court noted that the supplementary charge-sheet indicated that, apart from allegations of harbouring terrorists, a huge...

'Mere Delay In Trial Cannot Be Used As Grounds For Bail': Jharkhand High Court Refuses Bail To UAPA Accused

Rushil Batra

Tags