Jharkhand High Court
Baijnath Ganjhu vs Union Of India Through National … on 18 March, 2026
Author: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Neutral Citation
2026:JHHC:7489-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 152 of 2026
Baijnath Ganjhu, S/o Guddu Ganjhu, R/o Vill- Lukaiya Tola
Jamungada, P.O. + P.S.- Chandwa, Dist.- Latehar.
... Appellant
Versus
Union of India through National Investigation Agency, New
Delhi. ... Respondent
----
PRESENT
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
—-
For the Appellant : Mr. Birendra Kumar, Adv.
For the Resp.-NIA : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Spl. P.P.-NIA
—-
Dated : 18/03/2026
1. Heard Mr. Birendra Kumar, learned counsel for the
appellant and Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned Spl. P.P.-NIA
2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 01-12-2025
passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-XVI-
cum-Special Judge NIA, Ranchi, in Misc. Criminal Application
No. 2211/2025 in connection with Special (NIA) Case No.
03/2020 arising out of R.C. No. 38/2020/NIA/DLI (Chandwa
P.S. Case No. 04 of 2020) whereby and whereunder, the prayer
for bail of the appellant has been rejected.
3. The prosecution case arises out of the self-statement of
Madan Kumar Sharma, S.H.O of Chandwa P.S., in which it has
been stated that on 05-01-2020, the informant had received a
secret information that three persons had come at Budh Bazar,
Chandwa on a motorcycle bearing Registration No. JH01 CW
7773 to collect levy from a contractor and the amount collected
was to be delivered to Ravindra Ganjhu. It has been alleged that on
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) NO. 152 OF 2026 1
Neutral Citation
2026:JHHC:7489-DB
receiving such information, the informant along with other police
personnel reached near Shiv Mandir, Saroj Nagar, Budh Bazar,
Chandwa at 05:00AM and it was noticed that three persons were
going towards the stadium on a motorcycle bearing Registration
No. JH01 CW 7773. When the Police had directed the
motorcyclists to stop, they tried to flee away but were
apprehended and overpowered and they had disclosed their
names as Baijnath Ganjhu, Rajesh Ganjhu (appellant) and
Kunwar Ganjhu. On a search of the apprehended accused
persons, one black colour purse, one Aadhaar card belonging to
Lalita Devi, one Aadhaar card belonging to Sukhmani Devi, one
Aadhaar card of Rajesh Kumar, one ATM card, one passbook of
Union Bank of India in the name of Rajesh Ganjhu were
recovered from the appellant; one bag containing cash of Rs. 5
lakhs, one black colour trouser, one full sleeve round neck T-
shirt, a Samsung mobile, a purse containing one PAN card and
Aadhaar card of Baijnath Ganjhu, a letter written by Ravindra
Ganjhu addressed to Sonu Singh in which a levy amount of Rs.
5 lakhs was demanded were recovered from the possession of
Baijnath Ganjhu. The search of Kunwar Ganjhu did not yield any
recovery. From the joint possession of accused persons, a Super
Splendor motorcycle was recovered and seized. It has been
alleged that the accused persons had disclosed that they are the
henchmen of Maoist commander Ravindra Ganjhu and under his
direction they provide logistical support and information about
the movement of the police to Ravindra Ganjhu and other
members of the terrorist organisation.
4. Based on the aforesaid allegations, Chandwa P.S. Case No.
04 of 2020 was instituted under Sections 386, 411, 120 BIPC,
Section 17 CLA Act and Section 13, 16, 17, 20, 21 and 23 of the
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (hereinafter referred to
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) NO. 152 OF 2026 2
Neutral Citation
2026:JHHC:7489-DB
as UA(P) Act for the sake of brevity). On completion of
investigation, charge sheet was submitted and cognizance was
taken by the learned A.C.J.M., Latehar.
5. The Central Government considering the gravity of the
offence, directed the NIA vide Order F. No. 11011/66/2020/NIA
dated 29.10.2020 to take over the investigation of the said case.
In compliance of the directions of Ministry of Home Affairs, CTCR
Division, Government of India, NIA took over investigation and
Chandwa P.S. Case No. 04 of 2020 was re-registered as
RC38/2020/NIA/DLI. On completion of investigation, First
Supplementary Charge sheet was submitted by the NIA against
six accused persons including the present appellant.
6. It has been submitted by Mr. Birendra Kumar, learned
counsel for the appellant that the only allegation against the
appellant is of providing logistical support for the Maoist
organisation. The appellant is in custody since 05.01.2020 and
out of 160 charge sheet witnesses, only five witnesses have been
examined so far. It has been submitted that there is no possibility
of the trial being concluded in the near future as only five
witnesses have been examined so far and the appellant has
completed more than six years in custody. According to Mr.
Birendra Kumar, learned counsel, the rigors of 43D(5) of the
UA(P) Act would not apply to the appellant in view of the facts
and circumstances of the case.
7. Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned Special P.P.-NIA has
submitted that several of the protected witnesses have disclosed
several incriminating factors against the accused persons
including the appellant. The appellant was one of the confidantes
of Maoist leader Ravindra Ganjhu who had collected Rs. 5 lakhs
in cash from Sonu Singh based on a letter authored by Ravindra
Ganjhu. Mr. Das has expressed his apprehension that if the
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) NO. 152 OF 2026 3
Neutral Citation
2026:JHHC:7489-DB
appellant is released on bail, he shall in all probabilities tamper
with the evidence. It has also been submitted that the prayer for
bail of co-accused Kunwar Ganjhu has already been rejected by
a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Appeal (DB) No.
944 of 2025.
8. The role essayed by the appellant has been depicted at para
17.50.1 of the First Supplementary Charge Sheet and the same
reads as follows:
“17.50.1 BAIJNATH GANJHU (A-1):
Baijnath Ganjhu (A-1) is a courier/messenger/informer/over
ground worker of CPI (Maoist). He is a close associate of other
co-accused persons Rajesh Ganjhu (A-2), Kunwar Ganjhu (A-
3) and Ravindra Ganjhu (A-4). He is involved in providing
logistics support to CPI (Maoist) and collection of funds for the
said terrorist organisation at the behest of Ravindra Ganjhu
(A-4). He used to meet Ravindra Ganjhu (A-4) in the forest
frequently and supplies necessary items such as ration,
clothes etc. to Ravindra Ganjhu (A-4) and his cadres. He
collected money from Sonu Singh (A-5) on the direction of
Ravindra Ganjhu (A-4) twice on 02.01.2020 and 05.01.2020
for CPI (Maoist) by producing letters of Ravindra Ganjhu (A-
4). Rs. 5 lakhs and a pair of clothes given by Sonu Singh (A-
5) for Ravindra Ganjhu (A-4) and one letter of Ravindra
Ganjhu (A-4) addressed to Sonu Singh (A-5) have been
recovered from his possession on 05.01.2020 and he was
arrested. Subsequently, the cash has been attached under
section 25(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act as
proceeds of terrorism. He was also charge-sheeted in another
NIA case No. RC- 25/2020/NIA/DLI for aiding Ravindra
Ganjhu (A-4) and his armed cadres of CPI (Maoist) in killing
of four police personnel and looting of their arms/ammunitionCRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) NO. 152 OF 2026 4
Neutral Citation
2026:JHHC:7489-DBon 22.11.2019 at Lukuiya More under Police Station
Chandwa limits, District Latehar, Jharkhand. Baijnath
Ganjhu (A-1) is part of criminal conspiracy to commit
cognizable offences along with top Maoist Ravindra Ganjhu
(A-4) and others. A-1 through his actions and illegal
omissions, concealed the existence of a design to wage war
against the Government of India by CPI (Maoist) and he
facilitated CPI (Maoist) for waging such war by concealing
the existence of said design. On the direction of Ravindra
Ganjhu (A-4), A-1 received / collected the stolen property i.e.
criminally misappropriated from Sonu Singh (A-5) knowing
that the same would be used for terrorism or for commission
of terrorist acts by the cadres of terrorist organisation CPI
(Maoist). A-1 conspired with and knowingly facilitated
terrorist Ravindra Ganjhu (A-4) in preparatory acts for the
commission of terrorist acts. A-1 is a member of banned
terrorist organisation CPI (Maoist) being a courier and
messenger. A-1 knowingly holds the amounts given by Sonu
Singh (A-5) for terrorist act. A-1 is associated himself with
terrorist organisation CPI (Maoist) knowingly and aided the
said organisation voluntarily to further its activities. A-1 has
provided logistics support to terrorist organisation CPI
(Maoist), took part in the meetings of Maoist cadres and
invited support of others including A-2 & A-3 for said terrorist
organisation. A-1 has collected or received funds for terrorist
organisation CPI (Maoist) knowing that such funds would be
used for terrorism.
Thereby, accused Baijnath Ganjhu (A-1) has committed
offence under sections 120B, 123 and 411 of the Indian
Penal Code and sections 17, 18, 20, 21, 38, 39 and 40 of the
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.”
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) NO. 152 OF 2026 5
Neutral Citation
2026:JHHC:7489-DB
9. The role of the appellant has been depicted to be that of a
courier and messenger and he seems to be an overground worker
of the terrorist organization. The appellant was also charge
sheeted in Special (NIA) Case No. 02/2020 for being involved in
the murder of four police personnel at Lukuia More, though in
the said case the appellant has already been granted bail in
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1132 of 2025. While granting bail, the
period of custody and the possibility of the trial being concluded
in the near future being bleak has also been taken into
consideration.
10. In order to appreciate the contentions of Mr. Das, learned
Special P.P.-NIA that the bail application of one of the co-accused
similarly situated has been rejected by a Co-ordinate Bench of
this Court in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 944 of 2025, we now shall
have a glance on the role played by the said appellant and which
finds place at para 17.50.3 of the First Supplementary Charge
Sheet. The same reads as under:
“17.50.3 KUNWAR GANJHU @ KUWAR GANJHU
(A-3),
Kunwar Ganjhu (A-3) is elder brother of top Maoist cadre
Ravindra Ganjhu (A-4). A-3 is a courier/informer/over
ground worker of CPI (Maoist) since long. He used to meet his
Maoist brother Ravindra Ganjhu (A-4). He collected funds
from contractors by giving threats on behalf of his brother
Ravindra Ganjhu (A-4) and extorted money from contractors
by putting them in fear of death. On the direction of Ravindra
Ganjhu (A-4), he accompanied Baijnath Ganjhu (A-1) and
Rajesh Ganjhu (A-2) to meet his brother Ravindra Ganjhu (A-
4) at Beerjangha forest and collected fund of Rs. 5 lakhs from
Sonu Singh (A-5), on 05.01.2020. He used to meet his brother
Ravindra Ganjhu (A-4) in the forests frequently and providesCRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) NO. 152 OF 2026 6
Neutral Citation
2026:JHHC:7489-DBlogistics support to A-4. On earlier occasions also, A-3
received funds from Sonu Singh (A-4) in 2012 & 2014 at the
behest of his brother A-4. He was an accused in two more
cases of extortion by arson of vehicles/stopping
work/leaving a threatening letter and voluntarily obstructs
to a public servant from discharge of his duty which were
registered at Chandwa PS. He is a habitual offender of
extortion and he procured property with the proceeds of
terrorism.
Kunwar Ganjhu (A-3) is part of criminal conspiracy to commit
offence along with his Maoist brother Ravindra Ganjhu (A-4)
and others. A-3 acted or illegally omitted or concealed the
existence of a design to wage war against the Government of
India by a banned terrorist organisation CPI (Maoist) and he
facilitated the terrorist organisation for waging such war by
concealing the existence of design. On the direction of
Ravindra Ganjhu (A-4), A-3 received or collected stolen
property i.e. criminally misappropriated from Sonu Singh (A-
5) knowing that the same would be used for terrorism. A-3
committed extortion from the contractors and put those
contractors in fear of injury in order to commit extortion with
the help of his Maoist Ravindra Ganjhu (A-4). On the direction
of accused Ravindra Ganjhu (A-4), A-3 accompanied A-1 &
A-2 to collect funds from Sonu Singh (A- 5) knowing that such
funds are likely to be used for commission of terrorist acts by
terrorist organisation CPI (Maoist). A-3 conspired with and
knowing facilitated to terrorists including Ravindra Ganjhu
(A-4) in preparatory to the commission of terrorist acts. A-3 is
a member of CPI (Maoist) being a courier and supporter. A-3
knowingly holds the amounts given by Sonu Singh (A-5) and
others. A-3 has associated himself with terrorist organisation
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) NO. 152 OF 2026 7
Neutral Citation
2026:JHHC:7489-DB
CPI (Maoist) knowingly and aided the said organisation
voluntarily to further its terrorist activities. A-3 has provided
logistics support to terrorist organisation CPI (Maoist), took
part in meeting with its cadres. A-3 has collected or received
funds from Sonu Singh (A-5) and others for terrorist
organisation CPI (Maoist) knowing that such funds would be
used for terrorism.
Thereby, accused Kunwar Ganjhu @ Kuwar Ganjhu (A-3) has
committed offence under sections 120B, 123, 384, 385 and
411 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 17, 18, 20, 21, 38,
39 and 40 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.”
11. The said Kunwar Ganjhu seems to be the elder brother of
the main accused Ravindra Ganjhu and apart from being an over
ground worker, he has been directly involved in committing
extortion from contractors by putting them in fear of bodily
injury. Therefore, the accused Kunwar Ganjhu has been shown
to be a courier and a messenger of the terrorist organization, but
para 17.50.3 entails a larger role which was played by him with
respect to his activities in the terrorist organization which
distinguishes the case of the present appellant with that of
Kunwar Ganjhu whose prayer for bail, as noted above, had
already been rejected. Para 17.50.2 does assign the role of the
appellant as a courier and messenger who provided logistical
support to the said organization.
12. In the case of Union of India v. K. A. Najib reported in
(2021) 3 SCC 713, it has been held as follows:
“17. It is thus clear to us that the presence of statutory
restrictions like Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA per se does not
oust the ability of the constitutional courts to grant bail on
grounds of violation of Part III of the Constitution. Indeed,
both the restrictions under a statute as well as the powersCRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) NO. 152 OF 2026 8
Neutral Citation
2026:JHHC:7489-DBexercisable under constitutional jurisdiction can be well
harmonised. Whereas at commencement of proceedings, the
courts are expected to appreciate the legislative policy
against grant of bail but the rigors of such provisions will melt
down where there is no likelihood of trial being completed
within a reasonable time and the period of incarceration
already undergone has exceeded a substantial part of the
prescribed sentence. Such an approach would safeguard
against the possibility of provisions like Section 43-D(5) of the
UAPA being used as the sole metric for denial of bail or for
wholesale breach of constitutional right to speedy trial.
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.
19. Yet another reason which persuades us to enlarge the
respondent on bail is that Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA is
comparatively less stringent than Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
Unlike the NDPS Act where the competent court needs to be
satisfied that prima facie the accused is not guilty and that
he is unlikely to commit another offence while on bail; there
is no such precondition under UAPA. Instead, Section 43-D(5)CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) NO. 152 OF 2026 9
Neutral Citation
2026:JHHC:7489-DBof the UAPA merely provides another possible ground for the
competent court to refuse bail, in addition to the well-settled
considerations like gravity of the offence, possibility of
tampering with evidence, influencing the witnesses or
chance of the accused evading the trial by absconsion, etc.
Conclusion
20. In light of the above discussion, we are not inclined to
interfere with the impugned order. However, we feel that
besides the conditions to be imposed by the trial court while
releasing the respondent, it would serve the best interest of
justice and the society at large to impose some additional
conditions that the respondent shall mark his presence every
week on Monday at 10 a.m. at the local police station and
inform in writing that he is not involved in any other new
crime. The respondent shall also refrain from participating in
any activity which might enrage communal sentiments. In
case the respondent is found to have violated any of his bail
conditions or attempted to have tampered the evidence,
influence witnesses, or hamper the trial in any other way,
then the Special Court shall be at liberty to cancel his bail
forthwith. The appeal is accordingly dismissed subject to the
above stated directions.
13. The appellant is in custody since 05.01.2020 and a large
number of witnesses are still left to be examined. On a totality of
the allegations leveled against the appellant, the period of
custody undergone by the appellant, the chances of the trial
being concluded in the near future being bleak and the fact that
the appellant has been granted bail in Criminal Appeal (DB) No.
812 of 2025 leads us to conclude that the appellant deserves to
be released on bail. Consequently, we set aside the order dated
01-12-2025 passed by the learned Additional Judicial
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) NO. 152 OF 2026 10
Neutral Citation
2026:JHHC:7489-DB
Commissioner-XVI-cum-Special Judge NIA, Ranchi, in Misc.
Criminal Application No. 2211/2025 in connection with Special
(NIA) Case No. 03/2020 arising out of R.C. No. 38/2020/NIA/DLI
(Chandwa P.S. Case No. 04 of 2020) and direct that the appellant
be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Ten
thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-XVI-
cum-Special Judge, NIA, Ranchi, subject to the condition that
the appellant shall remain physically present before the learned
trial court on each and every date till the conclusion of the trial,
unless prevented by sufficient cause.
14. This appeal is allowed.
15. Pending I.A.(s), if any, stands closed.
(RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.)
(PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.)
Dated: 18th March, 2026
Preet/-
Uploaded on:18 /03/2026.
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) NO. 152 OF 2026 11
