Merina Sirka Alias Marina Sirka Allias Marian Serika Vs National Investigation Agency

Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:27788-DB )

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 848 of 2025

Merina Sirka @ Marina Sirka @ Marina Sarika, D/o Lt. Renso Sirka, W/o Aptan Majhi, R/o Vill. Pokhariya, PO & PS Jeteya, District West Singhbhum, Jharkhand, Present R/o Village Dodi, PO & PS Chatro, Chatti, District Bokaro, Jharkhand … … Appellant

¶5

Versus

¶6

… … National Investigation Agency Respondent ---

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

¶8

¶9

For the Appellant : Mr. Shailesh Poddar, Advocate For the Respondent-NIA : Mr. A. K. Das, Special P.P.

¶10

¶11

3/11.09.2025 Heard Mr. Shailesh Poddar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. A. K. Das, learned Special P.P. appearing for the NIA. This appeal is directed against the order dated 24.06.2025 passed in Misc. Criminal Application No. 849 of 2025 in Special NIA Case No. 2 of 2021 arising out of R.C. Case No. 2 of 2021/NIA/RNC corresponding to Toklo P. S. Case No. 9 of 2021 by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner XVI cum Spl. Judge, NIA, Ranchi whereby and whereunder the prayer for bail of the appellant has been rejected.

¶12

It has been alleged that on an information received that armed cadre of the CPI Maoist, a banned organization are moving in the Lanji forest area, a team was constituted to conduct a raid in the said area. It has been alleged that at 8:30 A.M. on 04.03.2021, when the raiding party were moving to the forward slope of the Lanji forest area, an IED blast occurred, which resulted in the death of 3 police personnel and injuries to some others. Based on the aforesaid allegations, Toklo P. S. Case No. 9 of 2021 was instituted for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 353, 120 B, 121, 121 A, 307, 302, 333 & 353 of the I.P.C., Sections 3 & 4 of the Explosive Substance Act, Section 17 of the CLA Act and Sections 16, 20, 38 & 39 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.

¶13

-2-

¶14

Considering the gravity of the offence, in compliance of the direction of the Central Government, vide order F. No. 11011/66/2020/NIA dated 29.10.2020, the National Investigation Agency has re-registered the case being R. C. -02/2021/NIA/RNC on 24.03.2021.

¶15

It has been submitted by Mr. Shailesh Poddar, learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant has been arrayed as A-18 in the chargesheet submitted by the NIA primarily on the ground that the husband of the appellant who is the main accused has been arrayed as A-15 in the charge-sheet. He further submits that there is no specific allegation against the appellant of being a member of terrorist organization. The role and activities of the appellant as demarcated in paragraph 17.14.04 has been in a generalised form and in fact no specific finding has been recorded against the appellant either in the conspiracy or taking part in the IED blast which led to the death of 3 police personnel. It has been submitted that the appellant is in custody since 18.05.2023 and out of 169 charge-sheeted witnesses, only 38 witnesses have been examined so far, which would mean that there is no possibility of the trial being concluded in the near future. He further submits that from the chargesheet it can be clearly deciphered that no prima-facie case is made out against the appellant under Section 43 D (5) of UA(P) Act.

¶16

Learned Special P.P. for the NIA has opposed the prayer for bail of the appellant and referred to paragraph 17.12.1 of the charge-sheet while submitting that the protected witnesses A, B, C & D have categorically named the present appellant along with other accused persons to have hatched a conspiracy in committing the murder of security force personnel. It has been submitted that the appellant has got three criminal antecedents and is an active member of the terrorist organization. He further submits that the NIA does not intend to examine all 169 witnesses which will be pruned down in course of time and considering the specific allegations against the appellant, he does not deserve to be granted bail.

¶17

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record along with the charge-sheet brought on record by the NIA. The

¶18

-3-

¶19

role and activities assigned to the appellant have been demarcated in 17.14.04 which reads as follows:

¶20

“17.14.04: Role, Activities and Offences established against the absconding accused persons namely, Anal Da @ Patiram Manjhi @ Patiram Marandi @ Toofan Da (A-13), Maharaj Pramanik @ Raj Pramanik (A-14, Aptan Manjhi @ Chandra Mohan Hansda @ Amit Hansda @ Aftan (A-15), Champa @ Renuka (A-16), Bhuneshwar @ Saluka Kayam @ Maru @ Bikram Kayam (A-17), Merina Sirka (A-18), Rila Mala (A-21), Suraj Sardar @ Gaju Sardar (A-22), Sunita @ Bari (A-24), Sarita @ Mugali (A-25), Gita @ Ganguli @ Raimuni (A-26), Mangal Munda @ Pandeya @ Mangal Pandey (A-32) and Amit Munda @ Sukhlal Munda (A-43), in the instant crime: It is stablished that A-13, A-14, A-15, A-16, A-17, A-18, A-21, A-21, A-22, A-24, A-25, A-26 & A-43 are the armed cadres and top commanders of CPI (Maoist), a banned organization declared by the Government of India. On the basis of available evidences, in way of disclosure statements, Photo Identification proceedings and statements u/s 161 & 164 of Cr.P.C. of the protected witnesses, it is established that, absconding/armed cadres of CPI (Maoist) i.e., A-13, A-14, A-15, A-16, A-17, A-18, A-21, A-21, A-22, A-24, A-25, A-26, A-32 & A-43 were part of the conspiracy hatched as the cadres of CPI (Maoist). That, on 04.03.2021, under the leadership of A-13, A-14 & A-43, top cadres of CPI (Maoist) had conspired and carried out the IED blast at Lanji Forest Hill area which resulted in the killing of 03 Police personnel and caused serious injuries to three other police personnels. Further, A-13, A-14 & A-43 also criminal conspired with other members of the banned terrorist organization i.e., CPI (Maoist), with intent to aid the said organization for collecting funds from illegitimate sources through threat, from the local contractors by way of criminal intimidation knowing that such funds are to be used by them for committing terrorist act, preparatory to the commission of terrorist act and were knowingly concealing/dishonestly retaining such extorted amount cash/proceeds of terrorism. Due to the association of the accused A-43, he was arraigned as an accused in the instant case. Thereby, absconding accused persons A-13, A-14, A-15, A-16, A-17, A-18,

¶21

-4-

¶22

A-21, A-22, A-24, A-25, A-26, A-32 & A-43 has committed offences Sections 120 B, 121, 121 (A), 302, 307, 333 & 353 of IPC, Sections 3 & 4 of Explosive Substance Act and Section 16, 17, 18, 20, 38, 39 & 40 of UA(P) Act, 1967. :”

¶23

In paragraph 17.12.1, the gist of the statement of the protected witnesses have been mentioned which reads as follows:

¶24

“17.12.1: Deposition of statement u/s 161 & 164 Cr.P.C. Protected Witnesses:- During the course of investigation, Protected Witnesses ‘A’, ‘B’, ‘C’, & ‘D’ have deposed their statements u/s 164 of Cr.P.C. on 17.08.2021 & 19.08.2021 before the Ld. Court and Protected Witnesses ‘E’ & ‘F’ have deposed their statements u/s 161 of Cr.P.C., in which it has been established that the arrested accused A-1, A-3, A-7, A- 11 & A-12 and absconding accused A-13, A-14, A-15, A-16, A-17, A-18, A-21, A-22, A-24, A-25, A-26, A-32, A-33, A-42, A-43 along with other accused persons have conspired and executed the conspiracy of killing Security Forces personnel as per their planning.”

¶25

The protected witnesses have categorically stated about the involvement of the appellant who has been arrayed as A-18 along with other accused persons who were conspiring and executing a plan of murder of security police personnel by use of explosives. It also appears that the appellant has got two other criminal antecedents in Toklo P. S. Case No. 9 of 2020 and Toklo P. S. Case No. 3 of 2021.

¶26

Mr. Shailesh Poddar, learned counsel for the appellant in reply has submitted that the appellant is in jail custody since long along with a two years old child and her husband who was arrayed as A-15 has already been killed in police encounter. He has referred to the case of “Union of India Vs. Mritunjay Kumar Singh” reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 852 and the case of “Laxman Ganjhu @ Kohram Jee @ Amar Singh Bhokta Vs. The State of Jharkhand” in Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 391 of 2025 .

¶27

However, considering the nature of allegations levelled against the appellant of conspiracy and execution of a plan to eliminate security personnel and which led to an IED blast which took the life of 3 police personnel, the statements of the protected witnesses, the gist of which

¶28

-5-

¶29

have already been referred to in paragraph 17.12.1 of the charge-sheet and the antecedents of the appellant do make out a prima-facie case under Section 43 D (5) of the U.A.(P) Act and apart from the fact that the trial is progressing as several witnesses have been examined by the prosecution, we are not inclined to interfere in the impugned order dated 24.06.2025 passed in Misc. Criminal Application No. 849 of 2025 in Special NIA Case No. 2 of 2021 arising out of R.C. Case No. 2 of 2021/NIA/RNC corresponding to Toklo P. S. Case No. 9 of 2021 by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner XVI cum Spl. Judge, NIA, Ranchi and consequently we dismiss this appeal.

¶30

Pending I.A., if any stands closed.

¶31

(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)

¶32

(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)

¶33

R. Shekhar Cp 3

Merina Sirka Alias Marina Sirka Allias Marian Serika v. National Investigation Agency

Case brief

What is this about?

Merina Sirka Alias Marina Sirka Allias Marian Serika v. National Investigation Agency

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Md.Sheikh Belal Vs State of Jharkhand

Punai Oraon Vs State of Jharkhand

Kashi Mahato Vs State of Jharkhand

Moti Sk. Alias Motibul Shaikh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Rupesh Sharma Vs the State of Jharkhand

Pintu Oraon Vs the State of Jharkhand