Jharkhand High Court
Nowel Sandi Purty @ Novel Sandi Purty @ … vs The State Of Jharkhand on 17 April, 2026
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad, Sanjay Prasad
2026:JHHC:11430-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 217 of 2026
-----
Nowel Sandi Purty @ Novel Sandi Purty @ Suleman Sandi Purty @
Koche @ Abhiram, aged about-30 years son of Patras Sandi Purty,
Resident of Village- Ladauli, PO & PS- Bandgaon, District- West
Singhbhum at Chaibasa … … Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand … … Respondent
——-
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD
——-
For the Appellant : Mr. Gautam Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, A.P.P.
——
th
Order No. 02/Dated 17 April, 2026
1. The instant appeal under section 21(4) of the National
Investigation Agency Act, 2008 has been directed against the order dated
13.01.2026 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I,
Chakradharpur (Chaibasa) whereby and whereunder the prayer for regular
bail of the appellant in connection with Bandgaon P.S. Case No. 21 of
2022 corresponding to S. T. No. 371 of 2022 registered for the offences
under Sections 384/385 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 25 (1-B)a,
25 (1-A), 26 of the Arms Act, Section 4/5 of the Explosive Substance Act
and Section 17 of CLA Act, has been rejected.
Factual Matrix
2. The prosecution case in brief is that the on the basis of self-
statement of Officer-in-charge, Bandgaon namely S.I. Vikash Kumar,
wherein it has been alleged that on 13.07.2022 secret information was
received to S.P., West Singhbhum that near the forest and hillock of
Ladauli village Area Commander of PLFI namely Nowel Sandi Purty
1
2026:JHHC:11430-DB
alongwith his wandering for committing associates are a big untoward
incident. Thereafter, an OPS plan was prepared and to verify that
information he along with Assistant Police Superintendent-cum-SDPO Sri
Kapil Chaudhary, SDPO Chakradharpur PSI Avinash Kumar, Nirbhay
Kumar along with other police personnel proceeded towards that village
at about 10.30 p.m.
3. It has further been alleged that at about 11.50 p.m. when they
reached near village Ladauly before 1 k.m. from village Konsia more, then
as per direction of senior officials two team was constituted and both the
teams consciously proceeded towards Ladauly forest, when they are about
to reach at Ladauly forest then found some persons was in suspicious
condition. Then, matter was informed to another team. Seeing the police
team miscreants started fleeing. One of them was apprehended after chase.
On query, he disclosed his name as Nowel Sandi Purty (present
petitioner). His body was searched whereupon one rifle like AK-47, 18
live cartridges, pouch, one grenade bomb, pamphlet of PLFI and two
mobiles were recovered in presence of S.I. Satish Kumar Nirbhay Kumar.
He has also disclosed the name of his associates namely, Lambu @ Hira
@ Radung Bodra.
4. Accordingly, Bandgaon P.S. Case No. 21 of 2022 was instituted
and on 05.01.2023 charges were framed against the present petitioner
under Section U/S 25(1-A), 25(6), 26(2) of the Arms Act, U/Ss 4/5 of
Explosive Substances Act and U/s 17 of the C.L.A. Act, and consequent
thereto Sessions Trial being S.T. Case No. 371 of 2022 has been
commenced.
2
2026:JHHC:11430-DB
5. From record it transpires that the present petitioner had preferred
an appeal being Cr. Appeal (DB) No.1058 of 2023 before this Court for
his bail but the same was rejected by this Court vide order dated
31.10.2023.
6. Thereafter, the present appellant has renewed his prayer for bail
before the learned trial court by filing an application being Misc. Criminal
Application No. 17 of 2026 but the same was rejected vide order dated
13.01.2026 against which the present appeal has been preferred.
Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner:
7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that
the prayer for regular bail of the appellant has been considered on earlier
occasion in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1058 of 2023, but was rejected on merit
vide order dated 31.10.2023.
8. It has been submitted that the appellant is languishing in judicial
custody since 14.07.2022 and out of 10 witnesses, only 5 witnesses have
been examined. Therefore, it is a case where interference with the
impugned order may be shown so that the appellant may be allowed to
release from judicial custody.
Submission of the learned counsel for the state:
9. While on the other hand, the learned A.P.P. appearing for the
respondent-State has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the
appellant and has submitted that earlier the prayer for bail of the appellant
has already been rejected on merit and further there is no change in fact
and circumstances of the case, therefore, the order impugned does not
warrant any interference.
3
2026:JHHC:11430-DB
10. In addition, the learned A.P.P. has submitted that the present
appellant has criminal antecedents of a similar nature, and if released on
bail, there exists a likelihood that he may obstruct the smooth conduct of
the trial by tampering with the evidence.
Analysis
11. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone
through the material available on record.
12. This Court has considered the case of the appellant on merit in
earlier round of appeal being Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1058 of 2023 and the
same has been rejected vide order dated 31.10.2023. For ready reference
the relevant paragraph of the aforesaid order is being quoted as under:
“8. This Court, taking into consideration the fact that the appellant is
named in the F.I.R. as also the criminal history and possibility of
tempering with the evidence, since, he has been apprehended at spot
along with arms and ammunitions including grenade and further, as
would be evident from the case diary that altogether 20 cases are
pending against the appellant, the list of the said pending cases have
been appended with the counter affidavit, is of the view that impugned
order requires no interference.
9. Accordingly, the instant appeal stands dismissed”
13. From the aforesaid, it is evident that this Court, on an earlier
occasion while rejecting the prayer for bail of the appellant, had
considered the entire imputation made against him, as well as the nature
of the crime alleged to have been committed. The Court had also taken
into account that altogether twenty cases of a similar nature are pending
against the appellant, and further that he was apprehended at the spot along
with arms and ammunitions, including a grenade.
4
2026:JHHC:11430-DB
14. The instant appeal has been filed wherein the prayer for regular
bail has been renewed, primarily on the grounds of prolonged custody and
the probable delay in conclusion of the sessions trial being S.T. No. 371
of 2022.
15. In the aforesaid context this Court is of the view that merely on
account of long incarceration i.e. about three years and eight months in the
instant case, and the probable delay in conclusion of trial, the prayer for
bail of the appellant cannot be acceded to. Rather, the nature of the crime
alleged to have been committed by the appellant/accused must be
considered, so as to maintain the balance of justice and uphold the rule of
law.
16. It requires to refer herein that the Hon’ble Apex Court while
dealing with the UAP Act 1967 particularly Section 43 (D) (5) in the case
of Gurwinder Singh v. State of Punjab 2024 SCC OnLine SC 109 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.”
5
2026:JHHC:11430-DB
17. Further if prosecutions alleging offences which implicate the
sovereignty, integrity, or security of the State, delay does not operate as a
trump card and mere delay in trial pertaining to grave offences, as one
involved in the instant case, cannot be used as a ground to grant bail.
18. 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.
19. 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.
20. 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.
6
2026:JHHC:11430-DB
21. 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.
22. 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.
23. Herein, the learned counsel for the respondent has submitted at
Bar that 05 witnesses have already been examined out of 10 witnesses and
further all endeavor has been taken for expeditious conclusion of the trial,
therefore taking into consideration the aforesaid submission, the
apprehension of appellant in probable delay in trial is not fit to be
accepted.
24. Further, by referring to the criminal antecedents of the present
appellant, it has been submitted by the learned A.P.P. for the State that if
the appellant is released on bail, he would have every opportunity to
tamper with the evidence, influence the witnesses, or even abscond.
25. On the basis of the discussion made hereinabove, this Court is of
the considered view that, since altogether twenty cases of a similar nature
are pending against the appellant and, out of ten witnesses, five have
already been examined, the prayer for bail cannot be allowed at this
juncture merely on the grounds of custody and probable delay in
conclusion of trial. Allowing such relief at this stage would create a
7
2026:JHHC:11430-DB
likelihood of tampering with the evidence, particularly in view of the
appellant’s involvement in twenty cases of like nature.
26. This Court is further of the view that, since only five witnesses
remain to be examined, it would not be just and proper, at the fag end of
the trial, to release the appellant on bail on the ground of probable delay
in conclusion of trial.
27. Accordingly, on the basis of discussion made hereinabove, this
Court is of the view that the impugned order dated 13.01.2026 passed by
the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Chakradharpur (Chaibasa) in
connection with Bandgaon P.S. Case No. 21 of 2022 corresponding to S.
T. No. 371 of 2022 need no interference.
28. Accordingly, the instant appeal is, hereby, dismissed.
29. However, learned Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Sanjay Prasad, J.)
Dated 17.04.2026
Kamlesh/
8