Jharkhand High Court
Tarun Kumar @ Tarun vs The Union Of India Through National … on 20 April, 2026
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad, Sanjay Prasad
2026:JHHC:11509-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 39 of 2026
........
Tarun Kumar @ Tarun, aged about 31 years, S/o Pradyuman Sharma @
Saket @ Kundan R/o Village Rustampur, PO & PS Hulasganj, District-
Jehanabad, Bihar ..... --- Appellant
Versus
The Union of India through National Investigation Agency
…. — Respondent
—
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD
---
For the Appellant: Mr. Jitendra Shankar Singh, Advocate
Mr. Shailesh Poddar, Advocate
For the NIA: Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate
Mr. Saurav Kumar, Advocate
---
07 / 20.04.2026
Per Sujit Narayan Prasad J
I.A. No. 16820 of 2025
1. This interlocutory application has been preferred under Section 21(5)
of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 for condoning the delay of
49 days in preferring the instant criminal appeal.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. Considering the reason assigned in the interlocutory application and
taking into consideration the purport of Section 21(5) of the National
Investigation Agency Act, 2008, the delay of 49 days in preferring the
appeal is hereby condoned.
4. Accordingly, I.A. No. 16820 of 2025 stands allowed.
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 39 of 2026
1
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 24.09.2025 passed in Misc. Cr.
Application No. 1751 of 2025 by learned Additional Judicial
Commissioner-XVI-cum-Special Judge, NIA Cases, Ranchi whereby and
whereunder the prayer for bail, in connection with Special (NIA) Case
No.01 of 2022 arising out of RC-05/2021/ NIA/RNC registered under
Sections 16, 17, 18, 20, 38, 39 & 40 of the UA(P) Act, has been rejected.
Factual Matrix
6. The brief facts of the case as per the pleading made in the Memo of
Appeal, reads hereunder as :-
7. The case of prosecution in brief is that the Central Government
received information that CPI (Maoist), a banned proscribed terrorist
organization, cadres prominently Pradyuman Sharma along with Yogendra
Ravidas, Nagendra Giri (armed cadre of CPI(Maoist)), Abhinav,
Dhananjay Paswan (arms supplier of CPI(Maoist)) and others are
conspiring to revive CPI (Maoist) organization in Magadh Zone. They have
conspired to raise funds for procurement of arms and ammunitions and
training cadres in IEDs and to liaise with incarcerated naxals, OGWS in
various jails for commission terrorist activities. The Government of India,
Ministry of Home Affairs vide order F. No. 11011 / 79 / 2021 / NIA dated
27.12.2021 issued as per provision of Section 6(5) of the NIA Act 2008,
directed the NIA to register the case as FIR No. 5/2021/NIA /RNC dated
30.12.21 at PS NIA Ranchi under various Sections of Unlawful Activities
(Prevention) Act 1967 (UA(P) Act, 1967).
2
8. The appellant was arrested by NIA in the instant case on 25.07.2022.
On 20.01.2023 charge-sheet was submitted against 02 accused persons,
including present appellant namely Tarun Kumar @ Tarun (A-1) and
further on 28.06.2023, the 1st supplementary chargesheet was submitted
against the FIR named accused persons against Abhinav (A-3) and on
18.12.2023, 2nd supplementary chargesheet was submitted against the two
arraigned accused persons namely Anand Paswan (A-5) and Vijay Kumar
Arya (A-11).
9. Consequently, the above-named appellant had preferred the regular
bail application vide Misc. Cr. Application No. 214 of 2024 before the NIA
Special Court, Ranchi for bail but the same has been rejected vide order
dated 15.04.2024 against which the Cr. Appeal (DB) No.792 of 2024 has
been filed before this Court.
10. This Court vide order dated 14.11.2024 after taking due consideration
of all the factual aspect has rejected the prayer for bail of the appellant on
merit.
11. The aforesaid order was challenged by the appellant before the
Hon’ble Apex Court being Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No. 2309 of
2025. The Hon’ble Apex Court vide order dated 21.02.2025 has declined to
interfere with the impugned order. However, liberty was granted to the
petitioner/appellant to renew his bail application after a period of Six (06)
months.
12. Thereafter the present appellant has again renewed his prayer for bail
before the special Judge NIA by filing an application being Misc. Cr.
Application No. 1751 of 2025 but the same was dismissed against which
the present appeal has been preferred.
3
13. It further appears from the record that cognizance of the aforesaid
offences was taken against the charge sheeted accused persons including
the appellant and after framing of charge, trial proceeded.
Submission of the learned counsel for the appellant:
14. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the
prayer for regular bail of the present appellant has been dealt with by this
Court in earlier round of appeal being Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 792 of
2024 which was rejected vide order dated 14th November, 2024.
15. The aforesaid order was challenged by the appellant before the
Hon’ble Apex Court being Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No. 2309 of
2025. The Hon’ble Apex Court vide order dated 21.02.2025 has declined to
interfere with the impugned order. However, liberty was granted to the
petitioner/appellant to renew his bail application after a period of Six (06)
months.
16. It has further been submitted that the appellant after lapse of the
period of Six (06) months has again renewed the prayer for bail by filing
Misc. Criminal Application No. 1751 of 2025 before the special Judge NIA
by raising the issue of custody since 26.07.2022 and further ground was
taken that there are altogether 200 witnesses, out of which, only 41
witnesses have been examined and as such, there is no likelihood of
conclusion of the trial in near future.
17. The learned Special Judge has declined to allow the said application
by going through the alleged involvement of the appellant in commission
of crime. The said order is under challenged in the present appeal invoking
the jurisdiction conferred under Section 21(4) of the NIA Act, 2008.
4
18. Mr. Jitendra Shankar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant has further submitted that the learned Special Judge while
rejecting the prayer for bail has not assigned the reason on the issue of the
long incarceration i.e. Three (03) Years and Nine (09) Months.
19. The learned counsel for the appellant, therefore, has submitted that
due to non-consideration of the aforesaid aspect of the matter, the
impugned order rejecting the prayer for bail vide order dated 24.09.2025,
therefore, is fit to be quashed and set aside.
20. 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:
21. 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.
22. The learned counsel appearing for the NIA has submitted by referring
to the earlier order dated 14.11.2024 passed by this Court in Criminal
Appeal (D.B.) No.792 of 2024wherein the fact inentirety regarding the
involvement of the present appellant in commission of crime has been dealt
with elaborately and further the Hon’ble Apex Court has also declined to
5
interfere with the aforesaid order, therefore the order impugned requires no
interference by this Court.
23. It has further been submitted that so far as the issue of liberty to renew
prayer for bail after Six (06) Months is concerned, Mr. Das, learned counsel
on behalf of NIA has submitted that on the day of consideration of bail by
the learned Special Judge although the number of charge-sheeted witnesses
were 200 and out of them 41 witnesses have already been examined but
the said number of witnesses have already been pruned substantially and
now only 30 witnesses are left to be examined. In order to substantiate the
aforesaid contention, the learned counsel has submitted that the aforesaid
fact has already been averred in the counter-affidavit particularly in
paragraph-15 thereof.
24. He has submitted that he has received further instruction that 46
witnesses have already been examined and only 30 more witnesses are to
be examined.
25. He has also pointed out that the issue of incarceration which is being
agitated on behalf of the appellant is concernedthat it is the co-accused
personswho arepurposely delayingthe trial even by filing an application
under Section 311 of Cr.PC (348 of B.N.S.S.). further, in a situation of
recall, the specific stand has been taken by the NIA that one of the
protected witnesses (PW-3) has also been killed as has been taken note in
the order dated 15.04.2026 passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in
Cr. M.P. No. 980 of 2025 on the issue of Section 311 of Cr.PC.
26. It has been submitted that the moment the application under Section
311 of Cr.PC is being filed which itself suggests that the witnesses either
have not properly been cross-examined or due to some further input having
6
come on their record, the witnesses have been sought to be recalled. The
submission has been made that generally the Court allows the said
application under Section 311 of Cr.PC so as to may not be any miscarriage
of justice caused to the accused person and further to provide adequate and
sufficient opportunity to defend. But the fact remains that if the cross-
examination would have been done in the proper manner, then there would
not have been any occasion for filing an application under Section 311 of
Cr.PC.
27. The learned counsel has further emphasized that now only 30
witnesses are to be examined and as such, the instant appeal is not fit to be
allowed at the fag end of the trial particularly taking into consideration the
involvement of the appellant in the serious nature of crime as has been
found by the investigating agency as available in the counter-affidavit as
also having taken note by the Special Judge NIA while rejecting the prayer
for regular bail vide order dated 24.09.2025 passed in Misc. Criminal
Application No. 1751 of 2025.
28. 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
29. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the
finding recorded by the learned Special Judge in the impugned order. We
have also gone through the ground agitated on behalf of the appellant in the
memo of appeal and the averment made in the counter-affidavit.
7
30. This Court, before proceeding to consider the instant appeal preferred
on the basis of the liberty granted by Hon’ble Apex Court, 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
14.11.2024 passed in Criminal Appeal (DB) No.792 of 2024. For ready
reference, the part of the said order is being referred herein: –
31. It is evident from the perusal of charge-sheet that NIA in his
investigation found that cadre of the CPI (Maoist) hatched conspiracy
with the help of the appellant which is mentioned in para 17.4.4,
17.4.5, 17.4.8, 17.4.9, 17.4.10 and 17.14.01 of the chargesheet. For
ready reference the aforesaid paragraphs are being quoted herein
under:-
“17.4.4: Seizure of incriminating documents from the house of
accused persons Tarun Kumar (A-1) and Pradyuman Sharma @
Saket @ Kundan @ Sudhansu @ Kunal Nakul @ Laden (A-2):
During search on 12.02.2022 at the house of FIR named accused A-2
and arraigned accused A-1, incriminating documents / letters (diary)
were seized. On 03.05.2022, the specimen hand writing of accused A-1
was obtained in presence of two independent witnesses and in this
regard a proceeding has also been drawn. The specimen handwriting
of accused A-1 and seized incriminating document (diary) was sent to
Central Forensic Science Laboratory (CFSL), Kolkata (WB) for
matching and obtaining expert opinion.——
17.4.5: On 07.09.2022 searches at five locations were carried out by
NIA including the house of A-1, A-2 & A3. During the search,
incriminating letters related to CPI(Maoist) were again seized and it
is pertinent to mention here that, during that search arrested accused
A – 3 was present at the house of A-1 & A-2.
17.4.8: Statement of Protected Witness “A” (Hereinafter referred to
as ” PW -“A”) : – PW “A” stated in his statement that, during the year
2019 his company had taken a construction project. During the initial
period, he was regularly threatened by the arrested accused persons
i.e., A-1, A-2 and A-3, who were demanding levy on behalf of CPI
(Maoist), a proscribed terrorist organization. Accordingly, due to
regular threats (over VOIP calls), he was forced to pay the extortion
money. PW-“A” stated in his statement that, he was directed by the8
accused A-2 to pay the extortion amount in the bank account provided
to him. The details of the bank account number xxxxxxxx59680 of Ms.
Nitu Devi in IDBI bank account of Bihta, Patna, Bihar was shared by
A-1 on his WhatsApp number. PW-“A” stated that when he had asked
about the owner of the bank account, it was stated by the A-1 and A-3
that, the above bank account belongs to his close associate i.e.,
absconding accused Chandan Kumar (A-4). Accordingly, on
08.10.2020 a sum of three lakh rupees were transferred in the above
bank account. The above facts have been corroborated by the
statements of other important witnesses and from the bank account
statements of Ms. Nitu Devi and construction company. After this
transaction, PW-“A” was not picking up the calls of A-1, A-2 and A-3.
During investigation, it has also surfaced that during the first week of
February 2022, a letter was received on the WhatsApp number of PW-
“A”, which was later shared with PW-“B”. The letter was written by
“Saket”. It is pertinent to mention here that, “Saket” is the alias name
of the FIR named accused (A-2) Further, it is also important to
mention and clarify that the letter was actually written by accused A-1
in the name of A-2. Thereafter, A-2 had sent the letter from his own
mobile handset to PW-“A”, which was also seized on 12.02.2022.
17.4.9: Examination of Protected Witness “B” (Hereinafter referred
as PW-“B”):- PW-B corroborated the statement of PW-“A”. He also
added few more facts and produced the copy of the demand letter,
which was sent by accused A-1 on the WhatsApp number of PW- “A”.
The image of the letter was seized on production order on 04.04.2022.
PW-B also produced few incriminating voice clips of arrested FIR
named accused A-2 which were received by him in connection with
demand of extortion money. During the investigation, the
incriminating voice clips between A-2 and PW -“B” and was seized
on production order. Further, during the police remand of arrested
accused A-2, the specimen voice clip of the accused A-2 was obtained
in the presence of two independent witnesses. Further, the voice in
question (seized incriminating voice clips) and the specimen voice of
the arrested accused A-2 was sent to CFSL, New Delhi for matching
and obtaining expert opinion and the same was received.
17.4.10: Statement of Protected Witness “C” (Hereinafter referred
as PW- “C”): – During investigation the name of PW- “C” has
surfaced as a victim who had paid money to the accused persons A-1,
A-2, A-3 and A-4, as levy to the CPI(Maoist), a proscribed terrorist
organization. During investigation PW- “C” was examined and during
9
his examination he stated that he was regularly receiving threatening
calls from (A – 1) (A – 2) and (A – 3) maximum on his WhatsApp
number for paying levy to the CPI(Maoist). In support of his claim, he
had produced few incriminating voice clips of accused A-3. During
investigation the specimen voice of A-3 was voluntarily obtained in
the presence of two independent witnesses. Further, the voice in
question and the specimen voice were forwarded to CFSL, New Delhi
for matching and obtaining expert opinion. Investigation also revealed
that, PW- “C” was directed by the accused persons A-1, A-2 and A-3
to pay the levy and for the said purpose transferred the funds in the
bank account number xxxxxxxx59680, in IDBI bank account of Bihta,
Patna, Bihar, which belonged to Ms. Nitu Devi. On the direction of
accused A-2, the details of bank account were shared by accused
persons A-1 and A-3 on the WhatsApp number of PW-“C”.
Investigation has also revealed that the funds ie., approx. Six Lakhs
Forty thousand rupees were transferred / deposited in the bank
account of Ms. Nitu Devi. For transferring the funds, PW- “C” had
used the assistance of his supervisor i.e., PW- “D” and approximately,
two lakhs sixty-five thousand was transferred through the UPI number
of PW- “D”. To minimize the risk of suspicion, the funds were
transferred in small amounts from the IDBI Bank, Koderma,
Jharkhand. The above facts also get corroborated with the deposit
slips, bank account statements of Ms. Nitu Devi and from the
statements of independent witnesses.”
17.14.01 Arrested Accused A-1 is associated with CPI Maoist a
proscribed terrorist organisation declared by the government of India
. For the cadres of CPI maoist he used to raise funds and also
motivate ex-cadres of CPI maoist for the revival of the above
organisation. He was party to the conspiracy in raising funds for the
CPI maoist in the instant case. As a part of the larger conspiracy he
worked as a conduit between the operatives of the CPI Maoist and
other stakeholders of Magadh Zone in the state of Jharkhand and
Bihar. He has written the demand letters for levy and forwarded the
same to the local contractors knowing well that such fund will be used
against country threatening its unity, integrity security and
sovereignty. Therefore, as per averments made in pre-paras, it is
established that A-1 became member of CPI maoist and actively
participated in the conspiracy and raising funds which was hatched
among co-accused persons in raising funds for the CPI Maoist and on
that basis petitioner Tarun Kumar A-1 has been charged for offences
10
u/s 120B (substantively) section 120B r/w section 386 and 411 of the
IPC and sections 13, 17, 18 , 20, 38, 39 and 40 of the UA(P) Act,
1967.”
31. During investigation, it has been revealed that the applicant is the
adopted son (i.e., son of brother namely 23 Pramod Sharma) of
Pradyuman Sharma, who was the member of Special Area Committee
of Bihar- Jharkhand Special Area Committee (BJSAC) the CPI
(Maoist) and the appellant used to raise funds and motivate the ex-
cadres of CPI (Maoist) for the revival of the above organization.
32. Further, during the course of investigation on 12.02.2022, the
house search, of FIR named accused Pradyuman Sharma was carried
out. During the course of search, certain incriminating documents
were found and seized in presence of the present appellant/accused
i.e.. Tarun Kumar (A-1). It is also pertinent to mention herein that the
incriminating letters, which were seized were related to raising funds,
on behalf of CPI (Maoist).
33. On the basis of the forensic examination report of CFSL, it has
been alleged that, the seized incriminating letters pertaining to
demand of levy on behest of proscribed terrorist organization
CPI(Maoist) were written by the appellant Tarun Kumar (A-1). 34. In
this instant case, the role of present appellant / accused Tarun Kumar
(A-1) surfaced for his active involvement in the crime from conspiracy
to execution in raising funds for the CPI (Maoist), a proscribed
terrorist organization, for the sake of un-lawful activities.
35. It is revealed during the investigation that Ms Puja Kumari d/o-
Pramod Sharma sister of Tarun Kumar A-1 24 and niece of FIR
named accused Pradyuman Sharma is pursuing MBBS from Chettinad
Medical college and Research institute, Chennai, Tamilnadu for the
academic session 2017-22 extended up to 30.03.2023 as an intern.
Huge funds were transferred in the bank account of Chettinad medical
college and Research institute, Chennai, Tamilnadu through various
bank accounts. During investigation it came to the notice that out of
total fees amount of Rs.1,22,00,000/- which was paid to the college
and most of the occasions the college fee was transferred/ paid by the
family members of Ms Puja Kumari.
36. During scrutiny of the bank accounts of facilitators it has also
surfaced that in almost all instances of transactions the transferred
amount was credited in cash in the bank account of the facilitators on
the same day or one or two days prior to the transactions. No
documentation is available either with the facilitators or with the
11
recipients for such transactions. Out of Rs.1,22,00,000/-,
Rs.1,13,70,500/- is seized in the instant case which is mentioned in the
chargesheet.
37. Further, the case has also been supported by the deposition of
independent witnesses cited as protected witnesses A, B, C D, E, F
whose statements were recorded under section 164 of Cr P.C. 25
38. Thus, prima-facie appears from the content of the charge-sheet
that there is prosecutable evidence against the appellant which is
supported by documentary as well as oral evidence of the witnesses of
chargesheet.
39. Further, it appears from record that the appellant had a clear
knowledge that CPI (Maoist) is a proscribed terrorist organization
and involved in many terrorist acts across the State. Despite having
such knowledge, he continued his nexus with the said terrorist
organization and he acted in blatant contravention of laws and impair
the safety and security of citizens and the State.
40. Thus, prima facie appears from the aforementioned paragraph of
the charge-sheet and on the basis of available disclosure statement
under section 164 Cr.P.C it is brought on record that the appellant was
part of the criminal conspiracy hatched with association of other
accused persons.
31. This Court, considering the nature of seriousness of allegation and
considering the same an act squarely attracting the ingredient of various
Sections of the UA(P) Act, 1967, had declined to allow the aforesaid bail
by rejecting it.
32. The appellant had moved to Hon’ble Apex Court by filing Special
Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No. 2309 of 2025. The Hon’ble Apex Court,
after going through the reason upon which the prayer for bail was declined
to be allowed by this Court, has declined to interfere with the said order.
However, liberty was granted to the petitioner/appellant to renew his bail
application after a period of Six (06) months for ready reference, the order
passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court is being referred herein which reads as
under :-
12
“Heard learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner.
We find no reason to interfere with the impugned order.
However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to renew his bail
application after a period of six months before the High Court.
The Special Leave Petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.”
33. 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.
34. 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.
35. 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
ofGurwinder Singh v. State of Punjab 2024 SCC OnLine SC 109has
categorically observed that if 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, for
ready reference, the relevant paragraphs of the aforesaid judgment are
being quoted as under:
13
“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 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,14
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.”
36. It requires to refer herein that the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of
Gurwinder Singh v. State of Punjab(supra) 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:
15
“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.”
37. 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.
38. 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 legitimate at that, about
public order, societal security, overall peace and the general deterrent force
in criminal law.
39. 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.
40. 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
16
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.
41. 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.
42. 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.
43. 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.
44. 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 earlier vide order dated 14.11.2024 passed in
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 792 of 2024 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.
17
45. It further needs to refer herein that Mr. Das, learned counsel on behalf
of NIA has submitted at Bar that on the day of consideration of bail by the
learned Special Judge although the number of charge-sheeted witnesses
were 200 and out of them 41 witnesses have already been examined but
the said number of witnesses have already been pruned substantially and
now only 30 witnesses are left to be examined. The learned counsel has
submitted that the aforesaid fact has already been averred in the counter-
affidavit particularly in paragraph-15 thereof. He has submitted that he has
received further instruction that 46 witnesses have already been examined
and only 30 more witnesses are to be examined. In the context of aforesaid
the statement made in paragraph-15 of the counter-affidavit needs to be
referred herein which reads as under:
“Para-15: – That it is respectfully submitted that after the
framing of charges, the prosecution has diligently led its
evidence and has examined 45 witnesses till date, while
35-40 additional witnesses, are yet to be examined. At
this crucial stage of the trial, if the present petition filed
by the appellant is allowed, it would seriously prejudice
the prosecution case and adversely affect the conduct of
the trial. Moreover, grant of such relief at this juncture
would also have an adverse impact on society at large,
particularly considering the gravity of the allegations
involved.”
46. Thus, on the basis of discussion made hereinabove this Court is of the
considered view that the contention of learned counsel for the appellant
about probable delay in conclusion in trial is not fit to be accepted.
47. So far as the long incarceration of the appellant, extending to about
three years and nine months, is concerned, it is settled law, as discussed and
18
referred to in the preceding paragraphs, that while the rights guaranteed
under Article 21 must always be protected, in cases where the security of
society and the nation is implicated, prolonged custody cannot, by itself,
constitute a ground for release. Rather, the culpability of the appellant in
the alleged commission of the crime must be duly considered.
48. So far, the delay in trial due to unnecessary filing of application under
Section 311 Cr.P.C. is concerned, we are not making any comment upon the
aforesaid aspect due to the reason that the statutory remedy if available it is
to be taken recourse on behalf of the defense.
49. This Court only concern with the fact that at this stage where only 30
witnesses are to be examined on behalf of the prosecution, willit be proper
to allow the present appellant to release on bail by ignoring the imputation
which has been surfaced in the charge-sheet which pertains to the issue of
national security due to insertion of the various offences as referred in the
UA(P) Act, 1967.
50. This Court, particularly by taking into consideration the judgment
rendered in the case of Gurwinder Singh vs. State of Punjab (supra) and
Gulfisha Fatima versus State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) wherein while
dealing with the applicability of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, it
has been observed that if 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 as stipulated in
UAP Act 196, is of the view that present appeal is not fit to be allowed.
51. 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
19
the rule of law, is of the view that the present appeal deserves to be
dismissed.
52. Accordingly, instant appeal stands dismissed.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Sanjay Prasad, J.)
Date: 20.04.2026
RKM.
A.F.R
20