Jharkhand High Court
Vikash Anand Ojha @ Abhishek @ Chhote @ … vs Union Of India Through National … on 17 April, 2026
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad, Sanjay Prasad
2026:JHHC:11313-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 457 of 2026
----
Vikash Anand Ojha @ Abhishek @ Chhote @ Chhotu, aged
about 33 years, son of – Loknath Ojha resident of quarter no.
F-171, Hanuman Mandir, Hanuman Garhi PTPS Patratu,
P.O. + P.S. – Patratu, District – Ramgarh, Jharkhand.
... ... Appellant
Versus
Union of India through National Investigating Agency, New
Delhi … … Respondents
——-
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD
——
For the Appellant : Mr. Birendra Kumar, Advocate
For the Res-NIA : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate
——–
Order No.02/Dated: 17 April, 2026
th
Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J:
I.A. No. 4862 of 2026
1. This interlocutory application has been preferred under
Section 21(5) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008
for condoning the delay of 12 days in preferring the instant
criminal appeal.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. Considering the reason assigned at paragraphs 3 of the
interlocutory application and taking into consideration the
purport of Section 21(5) of the National Investigation Agency
Act, 2008, the delay of 12 days in preferring the appeal is
hereby condoned.
4. I.A. No. 4862 of 2026 stands allowed.
-1-
2026:JHHC:11313-DB
Prayer
5. The instant criminal appeal has been preferred on
behalf of the appellant under Section 21(4) of the National
Investigation Agency Act, 2008 for setting aside the order
dated 25.11.2025 passed in Misc. Cr. Application No.2140 of
2025 by learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-XVI-cum-
Special Judge, NIA Cases, Ranchi whereby and whereunder
the prayer for bail, in connection with NIA Case RC-
01/2021/NIA/RNC 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.
Facts:
6. The prosecution case is based on the information
received by Balumath police station that at about 19 hours
on 18.12.2020, some unknown persons were burning
vehicles by firing indiscriminately near check post no.1,
Tetariakhand colliery. Assailants fired on the police party that
had rushed to the spot. Accused persons had burnt four
Trucks one motorcycle and injured four civilians. The
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
-2-
2026:JHHC:11313-DBcontaining threats to the transporters and coal companies,
involved in the mining area signed by one Pradip Ganjhu (A-
3) were found from the spot. Upon further inquiry, it was
revealed that gangster Sujit Sinha(A-1) and Aman Sahu
@Aman Sao(A-2) had conspired with accused Pradeep Ganjhu
(A-3) 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.
7. Accordingly, Balumath PS case no 234/2020 dated
19.12.2020 was registered u/s 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 Sujit
Sinha, Aman Sahu @ Aman Sao, Pradeep Ganjhu, Santosh
Ganjhu, Bihari Ganjhu, Pramod Ganjhu, and some other
unknown accused persons.
8. The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), Government of
India, in view of the gravity of the offence and its cross border
and international ramification, issued orders in exercise of
power vested under Section 6(5) read with section 8 of the
NIA Act 2008 and directed the NIA to take up the
investigation of the aforesaid case.
9. On the direction of the Ministry of Home Affairs, NIA re-
registered the case being RC-01/2021/NIA-RNC dated
04.03.2021 under section 147, 148, 149, 353, 504, 506, 307,
-3-
2026:JHHC:11313-DB
427, 435, 386, 387, 120B, 121A, 216 of IPC Section 25(1)(b),
26, 27 and 35 of Arms Act section 3 & 4 of Explosive
Substance Act section 17 CLA Act and section 10, 13, 16(1),
(b), 20 and 23 UA(P) Act.
10. After investigation NIA submitted 2nd supplementary
charge-sheet against Pankaj Karmali @ Khetia (A-23), Akash
Kumar Roy @ Monu Roy (A-27) Kundan Kumar (A-28) and
Vikash Anand Ojha @ Abhishek (A-26) (present petitioner)
11. 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 but the same has been rejected vide order dated
25.11.2025 against which the present appeal has been filed.
Submission of the learned counsel for the appellant:
12. Mr. Birendra Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant
has contended that in the present case the prayer for regular
bail of the appellant has been considered in the earlier round
of application being Cr. Appeal (DB) No.744 of 2023 but was
rejected vide order dated 28.02.2024.
13. The said order was challenged by filing Special Leave
Petition being S.L.P.(Criminal) Diary No.31833 of 2024 but
the Hon’ble Apex Court although has declined to interfere
with the order but while dismissing the appeal, liberty was
given to the appellant to renew the prayer for bail if the trial
is prolonged.
-4-
2026:JHHC:11313-DB
14. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant, by
referring paragraph 2 of the memo of appeal, has submitted
that there are altogether 325 witnesses against which only 28
witnesses have been examined whereas the appellant is in
judicial custody since 18.12.2021. Thus, he has already
remained in custody for about last four years.
15. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has
submitted that in the facts of the present case, the judgment
rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Union of
India vs. K.A. Najeeb [(2021) 3 SCC 713] squarely covers,
as such, the impugned order may be quashed and the
consequential order may be passed for release of the
appellant in connection with the aforesaid case.
Submission of the learned counsel for the respondent:
16. While on the other hand, Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned
counsel appearing for the National Investigating Agency (NIA)
has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail by showing no
interference with the impugned order.
17. He has submitted that the factual aspect of the matter,
particularly, the culpability committed by the appellant has
been brought on record in the counter affidavit.
18. He has submitted that the entire allegation and the
implication of the present appellant is based upon the valid
ground as has been taken note by this Court in the order
-5-
2026:JHHC:11313-DB
dated 28.02.2024 passed in Criminal Appeal (DB) No.744 of
2023 as appended to the paper book as Annexure-1.
19. He has submitted in response to the argument
advanced regarding the number of witnesses and the
witnesses who have already been examined, that although
the number of charge-sheeted witnesses was 325 but
subsequently and in pursuance to the order passed by this
Court dated 25.03.2025 passed in Criminal Appeal (DB)
No.226 of 2025, a sincere endeavour has been taken by
taking decision to prune the number of witnesses and now it
has been reduced to 127 witnesses.
20. He has submitted that out of 127 witnesses; 32
witnesses have already been examined as on the date.
21. The submission has been made that so far as the
applicability of the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court
in the case of Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb (Supra) is
concerned, the factual aspect involved in the said case based
upon which the judgment has been passed by the Hon’ble
Apex Court is not at all applicable in fact and circumstances
of the present case.
Analysis:
22. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone
through the finding recorded by learned Special Judge as
available in the impugned order.
-6-
2026:JHHC:11313-DB
23. This Court, before proceeding to consider the
application made on the basis of the liberty granted by
Hon’ble Apex Court in filing the appeal on the ground of
prolonged incarceration is concerned, first of all, the issue on
merit, i.e., the alleged allegation upon the petitioner needs to
be referred herein, as has been taken note by this Court in
the order dated 28.02.2024 passed in Criminal Appeal (DB)
No.744 of 2023. For ready reference, the part of the said
order is being referred herein :-
“40. From perusal of record, it is evident that the extract
of the supplementary charge-sheet is part of the counter
affidavit as appended as Annexure-A. It appears from
paragraph 17.23 that it has come on record that Vikash
Anand Ojha @ Abhishek (A-26) [appellant herein] 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) and 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.
41. It has further been revealed as has been referred
under paragraph 17.24 of the supplementary chargesheet
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-7-
2026:JHHC:11313-DBJune/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). However, accused 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 against
Akash Kumar Roy @ Monu (A-27), Kundan (A-28) and
others. It appears from Paragraph 17.26 that Kundan
Kumar (A-28) received Shahrukh Ansari from Ratu Talab,
Ratu in Ranchi and brought him at Namkum flat for
facilitating his safe stay/harbor for further criminal
activities. Kundan Kumar (A-28) was tasked to supply arms
and ammunition to the Sujit Sinha and Aman Sahu gang.
42. The investigation further revealed, as has been
referred at paragraph 17.36, wherein the complicity of
Kundan Kumar (A-28) has been referred who has been seen
with Akash Kumar Roy @ Monu. It has also come that
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 has also corroborated the
fact that he saw him before the raid by Namkum Police in
the flat, this person was also present in the said flat in
Namkum with Akash Kumar Roy @ Monu Roy (A-27) and
Kundan Kumar (A-28). Paragraph 17.22, 17.23, 17.24,
17.25, 17.31, 17.32, 17.36 and 18.1 are quoted hereunder
as :-
“17.22 During the investigation, it has come on record that
in the month of November, 2020, on the direction of
Aman Sahu, Shahrukh Ansari along with accused
Wasim Ansari of Kanbhita received 20 mobiles and
Rs. 70,000/- from Abhishek Singh (A-26) at Ratu talab,
Ranchi. Further, on the direction of Aman Sahu,
Abhishek Singh (A-26) provided three pistols, two
single shot country-made Kattas with 20 round of
each and Rs. 50.000/- cash. to Shahrukh Ansari (A-
21) for carrying out firing and arson at
-8-
2026:JHHC:11313-DB
Tetariyakhad, at Ratu Talab, Ranchi. Vikash Anand
Ojha @ Abhishek(A-26) stated that on the direction of
Aman Sahu, he provided logistic support and had
been supplying arms and ammunition to the gang
since 2019.
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 Nankum,
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 against 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
-9-
2026:JHHC:11313-DB
Mor, 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 for 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.
17.32 Investigation revealed that Vikash Anand Ojha @
Abhishek(A-26)was using Airtel mobile numbers
8862822874 and 8116049395 post Tetariyakhad
incident in supplying of arms and ammunition to this
terrorist gang. The call data records of these mobile
numbers were sought from the service provider. On
analysis, his location as per the call data of said
mobile numbers it revealed that he had gone to
Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh in
January/February, April, June, July and August 2021
till his arrest with arms and ammunition by Special
Cell of Delhi Police from Chopda, Maharashtra.
17.36 During investigation, it has come on record that
Protected witness “C” stated that Akash Kumar Roy a Monu
Roy (A-27) and Kundan Kumar (A-28) arranged a flat at
Namkum, Ranchi on forged ID proof. He saw other persons
with 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).”
– 10 –
2026:JHHC:11313-DB
17.38 During the course of investigation report of explosive
section of SFSL, Ranchi was obtained which establishes the
presence of high explosive mixture of Nitrocellulose,
Nitroglycerine and Potassium nitrate alongwith Ammonium
Nitrate in the Cane bomb exploded at the terror site. The
electric wires seized from the scene of crime were also
found in working condition which can be used in electrical
circuit. The analysis of swabs obtained from hole mark of
trucks also confirmed the detection of Lead and Copper in
the swab which concluded that the holes were caused due
to impact of bullet during firing.
18. Charge:
18.1 Investigation brought on record that Pankaj Karmali @
Khetin (A-23), Vikash Anand Ojha @ Abhishek (A-26).
Akash Kumar Roy @ Monu Roy (A-27) and Kundan Kumar
(A-28) alongwith other known and unknown accused
persons were found to be involved in the criminal
conspiracy by forming a terrorist gang, rioting with
deadly weapons, disruption of government work,
assault on government functionaries, attempt to
murder, mischief by fire and explosive substance,
extortion of money, harboring to the absconder,
supplying of firearms, having in possession and use
of firearms, causing explosion and carrying out
terrorist acts. They have committed offences under
various sections of law as mentioned against them and are
thus charged:
A-26-Vikash Anand Ojha @ Abhishek S/o late Loknath Ojha
Charged under Section:
Sec 120B read with 212, 384 of Indian Penal Code Sec
120B of IPC r/w 25(1)(B), 26of Arms Act, Sec 17, 18, 19, 20
of UA(P) Act, 1967.
43. It is thus evident from the imputation against the
appellant, as referred in the paragraphs as quoted herein
above, that it has come in the course of investigation on the
direction of Aman Sahu, Shahrukh Ansari along with
accused Wasim Ansari of Kanbhita received 20 mobiles and
Rs. 70,000/- from Abhishek Singh (A-26) at Ratu talab,
Ranchi. Further, on the direction of Aman Sahu, Abhishek
Singh (A-26) provided three pistols, two single shot country-
made Kattas with 20 rounds of each and Rs. 50.000/-
– 11 –
2026:JHHC:11313-DB
cash. to Shahrukh Ansari (A-21) for carrying out firing and
arson at Tetariyakhad, at Ratu Talab, Ranchi. Vikash
Anand Ojha @ Abhishek(A-26) stated that on the direction
of Aman Sahu, he provided logistic support and had been
supplying arms and ammunition to the gang since 2019.
Further, 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. It has further come in investigation that Vikash
Anand Ojha @ Abhishek (A-26) (appellant) 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. Accused- 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, which was visited by appellant- Vikash Anand Ojha @
Abhishek (A-26) 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). Investigation
further reveals that Vikash Anand Ojha @ Abhishek(A-26)
was using Airtel mobile numbers 8862822874 and
8116049395 post Tetariyakhad incident in supplying of
arms and ammunition to this terrorist gang. On analysis,
his location as per the call data of said mobile numbers it
revealed that he had gone to Maharashtra and Madhya
Pradesh in January/February, April, June, July and
August 2021 till his arrest with arms and ammunition by
Special Cell of Delhi Police from Chopda, Maharashtra.
During investigation, it has come on record that the
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
– 12 –
2026:JHHC:11313-DB
said flat. On the aforesaid allegation the accused Vikash
Anand Ojha @ Abhishek (A-26) alongwith other known and
unknown accused persons were found to be involved in the
criminal conspiracy by forming a terrorist gang, rioting with
deadly weapons, disruption of government work, assault on
government functionaries, attempt to murder, mischief by
fire and explosive substance, extortion of money, harboring
to the absconder, supplying of firearms, having in
possession and use of firearms, causing explosion and
carrying out terrorist acts accordingly charge was framed
against him.”
24. This Court, considering the nature of seriousness of
allegation and considering the same an act squarely
attracting the ingredient of Section 15 of the UA(P) Act, 1967,
has declined to allow the aforesaid bail by rejecting it.
25. The appellant has moved to Hon’ble Apex Court by filing
Special Leave Petition being S.L.P.(Criminal) Diary No.31833
of 2024. The Hon’ble Apex Court, after going through the
reason upon which the prayer for bail was declined to be
allowed, has declined to interfere with the said order.
However, liberty was granted to renew the prayer for bail on
the ground of prolonged incarceration, for ready reference,
the order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court is being referred
herein which reads as under :-
“Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner.
Delay condoned.
We do not find any ground to interfere with the
impugned order at this stage. However, if the trial is
prolonged, liberty is given to the petitioner to renew his
prayer for bail.
– 13 –
2026:JHHC:11313-DB
The Special Leave Petition is, accordingly, dismissed
with the aforesaid liberty.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed
of.”
26. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued on the
basis of such liberty and in sum and substance, the
argument has been advanced by taking aid of Article 21 of
the Constitution of India.
27. This Court is conscious that Article 21 of the
Constitution of India refers about the right to liberty. The
applicability of Article 21 of the Constitution of India has
been taken into consideration by the Hon’ble Apex Court but
simultaneously the consideration has also been given how to
make a balance in between Article 21 of the Constitution of
India and the imputation against the accused which is
serious in nature like that of the present case wherein the
culpability of the present appellant under the U.A.(P) Act,
1967 (herein referred as Act 1967) is one of the core issue.
28. 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 2024 SCC
OnLine SC 109 has categorically observed that if
prosecutions alleging offences which implicate the
– 14 –
2026:JHHC:11313-DB
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. Najeeb, 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
– 15 –
2026:JHHC:11313-DB
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 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.”
29. It requires to refer herein that the Hon’ble Apex Court in
the case of Gurwinder Singh v. State of Punjab(supra)
– 16 –
2026:JHHC:11313-DB
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.”
30. 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.
31. There is no dispute and it cannot be disputed that the
jurisprudence of Article 21 has, as it develops, recognised
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
– 17 –
2026:JHHC:11313-DB
legitimate at that, about public order, societal security,
overall peace and the general deterrent force in criminal law.
32. 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.
33. 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.
34. 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.
35. 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.
– 18 –
2026:JHHC:11313-DB
36. Further, in the case of Gurwinder Singh vs. State of
Punjab (supra) and 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.
37. Adverting to the facts of the case as also the grounds
taken on behalf of the appellant that although on merits, i.e.,
alleged involvement of the appellant, no argument has been
advanced and rightly has not been advanced reason being
that this Court has already taken into consideration by
rejecting the prayer for bail on the basis of alleged
involvement of the present appellant in the commission of
crime. However, the ground has been taken of long
incarceration in view of the liberty granted by the Hon’ble
Apex Court.
38. Mr. Das, learned counsel for the NIA, has submitted by
referring to the order dated 25.03.2025 passed in Criminal
Appeal (DB) No.226 of 2025 pertaining to the same F.I.R., the
subject matter of the present appeal, pressed by the same
counsel, namely, Birendra Kumar, wherein the prayer for bail
filed on behalf of the appellant of the said criminal appeal,
namely, Kundan Kumar, was withdrawn based upon the
– 19 –
2026:JHHC:11313-DB
submission made by the learned counsel for the NIA that all
sincere endeavour will be taken to expedite the trial, for ready
reference the said order is being referred herein :-
“1. The instant appeal under section 21(4) of the National
Investigation Agency Act, 2008 has been directed against the
order dated 12.09.2024 passed by the learned Addl. Judicial
Commissioner-XVI-cum-Special Judge, NIA, Ranchi in M.C.A
No.2362 of 2024 whereby and whereunder the prayer for
regular bail of the appellant in connection with NIA Case
No.RC-01/2021/NIA/RNC [Special (NIA) Case No.01 of 2021]
arising out of Balumath P.S Case No.234 of 2020 registered
for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 353, 504, 506,
307, 427, 435, 386, 387, 120B, 121A and 216 of the IPC,
Sections 25(1)(b), 26, 27 and 35 of the Arms Act, section 3 & 4
of the 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.
2. Mr. Birendra Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the
appellant, at the outset, has submitted that earlier the prayer
for bail of the present appellant has been dealt with by this
Court but the same was rejected vide order dated 30.06.2023
passed in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 298 of 2023 which is
appended as Annexure-1 to the present memo of appeal.
3. It has been submitted that there is no new ground save and
except the issue of expeditious trial.
4. Mr. Amit Kumar Das, the learned counsel appearing for the
respondent-NIA has submitted that all sincere endeavour will
be taken to expedite the trial.
5. Upon this, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant
seeks leave of this Court not to press the instant criminal
appeal.
6. Leave, as prayed for, is granted.
7. Accordingly, the instant criminal appeal is dismissed as not
pressed and disposed of as such.”
39. Mr. Das, learned counsel for the NIA, has submitted
that a sincere endeavour has been made by substantially
pruning the list of witnesses, reducing their number from 325
– 20 –
2026:JHHC:11313-DB
to 127. This reduction has been made after a rigorous
exercise and more than half of the witnesses have been
reduced.
40. The submission has been made that 32 witnesses, as of
now, have already been examined out of 127 witnesses.
41. The question of long incarceration is the ground agitated
in the present appeal.
42. The applicability of the judgment rendered by Hon’ble
Apex Court in the case of Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb
[Supra] has been raised.
43. This Court, in order to examine the applicability of the
said judgment on the basis of applicability of the factual
aspect involved in the present case and by making
comparison with the fact based upon which the order was
passed to release the appellant, namely, K.A. Najeeb, on bail,
has gone through the factual aspect as involved in the case of
Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb [Supra], for ready reference,
the same is being referred herein :-
“2. The prosecution case in brief is that one Professor T.J.
Joseph while framing the Malayalam question paper for the
second semester BCom examination at Newman College,
Thodupuzha, had included a question which was considered
objectionable against a particular religion by certain sections
of society. The respondent in association with other members
of the Popular Front of India (PFI), decided to avenge this
purported act of blasphemy. On 4-7-2010 at about 8 a.m., a
group of people with a common object, attacked the victim
professor while he was returning home with his mother and
sister after attending Sunday mass at a local Church. Over
– 21 –
2026:JHHC:11313-DB
the course of the attack, members of the PFI forcefully
intercepted the victim’s car, restrained him and chopped off
his right palm with choppers, knives and a small axe.
Country-made bombs were also hurled at bystanders to create
panic and terror in their minds and to prevent them from
coming to the aid of the victim. An FIR was consequently
lodged against the attackers by the victim professor’s wife
under Sections 143, 147, 148, 120-B, 341, 427, 323, 324,
326, 506 Part II, 307, 149 IPC; and Section 3 of the Explosive
Substances Act.
3. It emerged over the course of investigation that the attack
was part of a larger conspiracy involving meticulous pre-
planning, numerous failed attempts and use of dangerous
weapons. Accordingly, several dozen persons including the
present respondent were arraigned by the police. It was
alleged that the respondent was one of the main conspirators
and the provisions contained in Sections 153-A, 201, 202, 212
IPC, along with Sections 16, 18, 18-B, 19 and 20 of the UAPA
were also thus invoked against him. However, owing to him
being untraceable, the respondent was declared an absconder
and his trial was split up from the rest of his co-conspirators.
The co-accused of the respondent were tried and most of them
were found guilty by the Special Court, NIA vide order dated
30-4-2015 and were awarded cumulative sentence ranging
between two and eight years’ rigorous imprisonment.
4. The respondent could be arrested on 10-4-2015 only and a
charge-sheet was re-filed by the National Investigation Agency
against him, pursuant to which the respondent is now facing
trial. The respondent approached the Special Court and the
High Court for bail as many as six times between 2015 and
2019, seeking leniency on grounds of his limited role in the
offence and claiming parity with other co-accused who had
been enlarged on bail or acquitted. Save for the impugned
order, bail was declined to the respondent, observing that
prima facie he had prior knowledge of the offence, had
assisted and facilitated the attack, arranged vehicle
and sim cards, himself waited near the place of occurrence,
transported the perpetrators, sheltered, and medically
assisted them afterwards. The courts were, therefore, of the
– 22 –
2026:JHHC:11313-DB
view that the bar against grant of bail under Section 43-D(5)
of the UAPA was attracted.
5. The respondent again approached the High Court in May
2019 for the third time, questioning the Special Court’s order
denying bail. The High Court through the impugned order
[K.A. Najeeb v. Union of India, Criminal Appeal No. 659 of
2019, order dated 23-7-2019 (Ker)], released the respondent
on bail noting that the trial was yet to begin though the
respondent had been in custody for four years. Placing
emphasis on the mandate for an expeditious trial under the
National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, the High Court held
that the respondent undertrial could not be kept in custody
for too long when the trial was not likely to commence in the
near future, for not doing so would cause serious prejudice
and suffering to him. The operation of the aforementioned bail
order was, however, stayed [Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb,
2019 SCC OnLine SC 1956] by this Court. Resultantly, the
respondent has spent nearly five years and five months in
judicial custody.
44. It is evident that in the said case the background was
that the co-accused had already been convicted by inflicting
the sentence of 8 years. However, the respondent namely K.A.
Najeeb was declared an absconder and his trial was split up
from the rest of his co-conspirators. The co-accused of the
respondent were tried and most of them were found guilty by
the Special Court, NIA vide order dated 30-4-2015 and were
awarded cumulative sentence ranging between two and eight
years’ rigorous imprisonment.
45. The respondent K.A. Najeeb could be arrested on 10-4-
2015 only and a charge-sheet was re-filed by the National
Investigation Agency against him, pursuant to which the
respondent is now facing trial. The respondent approached
– 23 –
2026:JHHC:11313-DB
the Special Court and the High Court for bail as many as six
times between 2015 and 2019, seeking leniency on grounds
of his limited role in the offence and claiming parity with
other co-accused who had been enlarged on bail or acquitted
but bail was declined to the respondent.
46. The respondent again approached the High Court in
May 2019 for the third time, questioning the Special Court’s
order denying bail. The High Court through the impugned
order [K.A. Najeeb v. Union of India, Criminal Appeal No. 659
of 2019, order dated 23-7-2019 (Ker)], released the
respondent on bail noting that the trial was yet to begin
though the respondent had been in custody for four years.
47. The union of India assailed the aforesaid order granting
bail before the Hon’ble Apex Court. The operation of the
aforementioned bail order was, however, stayed [Union of
India v. K.A. Najeeb, 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1956] by the
Hon’ble Apex Court, resultantly, the respondent has spent
nearly five years and five months in judicial custody.
48. The respondent namely, K.A. Najeeb, had contended by
taking the ground that still 276 witnesses were to be
examined and therefore, the ground was taken that the time
to be consumed in examining the 276 witnesses will cross the
period of 8 years i.e. the sentence inflicted to the co-accused
of the same case.
– 24 –
2026:JHHC:11313-DB
49. The Hon’ble Apex Court, on the aforesaid pretext, has
called upon the UOI and by putting a question as to whether
there is any chance of pruning the number of witnesses. The
UOI has come out with the stand that based upon the nature
of crime, it is quite impossible to reduce the number of
witnesses.
50. The Hon’ble Apex Court then had considered the fact
that since one of the co-accused has already been convicted
for a period of 8 years, then the time which will be consumed
in examining 276 witnesses will cross the period of 8 years
and in that pretext the bail which was granted to respondent
K.A. Najeeb has not been interfered with by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court, for ready reference, the relevant paragraph of
the said judgment is being referred herein :-
“18. Adverting to the case at hand, we are conscious of the
fact that the charges levelled against the respondent are
grave and a serious threat to societal harmony. Had it been
a case at the threshold, we would have outrightly turned
down the respondent’s prayer. However, keeping in mind
the length of the period spent by him in custody and the
unlikelihood of the trial being completed anytime soon, the
High Court appears to have been left with no other option
except to grant bail. An attempt has been made to strike a
balance between the appellant’s right to lead evidence of its
choice and establish the charges beyond any doubt and
simultaneously the respondent’s rights guaranteed under
Part III of our Constitution have been well protected.”
51. Adverting to the factual aspect of the present case in
order to assess as to whether in the facts of the present case,
– 25 –
2026:JHHC:11313-DB
the judgment rendered in the case of Union of India vs. K.A.
Najeeb [Supra] is at all applicable, this Court has found that:
(i) None of the co-accused persons has yet been
convicted by the learned Special Court.
(ii) The maximum punishment as per the offence as
inserted in the First Information Report also under
the Act 1967 is the life imprisonment.
(iii) The number of witnesses although as per the charge-
sheet was 325 but the same has been pruned and
came down to 127 witnesses by a conscious decision
taken by the NIA.
(iv) Out of 127 witnesses, after pruning, 32 witnesses
have already been examined.
52. This Court, therefore, is of the view that it is not a case
where on fact the judgment rendered in the case of Union of
India vs. K.A. Najeeb [Supra] is applicable.
53. Law is well settled that there is no universal
applicability of the judgment passed by any court having the
binding precedence, rather, the applicability of the judgment
is to be tested on the basis of the fact of the case, reference in
this regard be made to the judgment rendered by Hon’ble
Apex Court in the case of Dr. Subramanian Swamy v. State
of Tamil Nadu and Ors., (2014) 5 SCC 75, paragraph-47 of
the said judgment is being reproduced hereinbelow:-
– 26 –
2026:JHHC:11313-DB
“47. It is a settled legal proposition that the ratio of any
decision must be understood in the background of the facts
of that case and the case is only an authority for what it
actually decides, and not what logically follows from it. “The
court should not place reliance on decisions without
discussing as to how the factual situation fits in with the
fact situation of the decision on which reliance is placed.”
54. This Court, on consideration of the fact as aforesaid and
applying the observation made by Hon’ble Apex Court to the
effect that the balance is to be maintained in Article 21 of the
Constitution of India and in maintaining the rule of law, as
has been observed in the case of Union of India vs. K.A.
Najeeb [Supra], is of the view that the present appeal
deserves to be dismissed.
55. Accordingly, the instant appeal stands dismissed.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Sanjay Prasad, J.)
Dated : 17th April, 2026
Birendra/ A.F.R.
Uploaded on 21.04.2026
– 27 –