Kohram Alias Laxman Ganjhu Alias Ibrahim Ji Alias Lallan Ji Alias Amar Singh Bhokta Vs Union of India through National Investigating Agency Represented by Superintendent of Police N.I.A.

Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:33560-DB )

[ Against the order dated 16.06.2025 passed in Misc. Criminal Application No. 886 of 2025, in connection with R.C. No. 22/2018/NIA/DLI), arising out of Special NIA Case No. 07/2018 (Lawalong P.S. Case No. 18/2017) by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-XVI-cum-Special Judge, NIA, Ranchi ]

¶3

Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 864 of 2025

¶4

Kohram @ Laxman Ganjhu @ Ibrahim Ji @ Lallan Ji @ Amar Singh Bhokta, S/o Jagan Ganjhu @ Jagan Singh Bhokta, R/o Village- Nawadih, P.O. & P.S. Lawalong, District- Chatra, Jharkhand. ... … Appellant

¶5

Versus

¶6

Union of India through National Investigating Agency, represented by Superintendent of Police N.I.A. having its office at N.I.A. Camp Office, Quarter No. 305, Sector-II, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi, Jharkhand- 834 002. ... … Respondent

¶7

P R E S E N T

¶8

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

¶9

For the Appellant : Mr. Balaji Shrinivasan, Adv. Mr. Niranjan Kumar, Adv. For the Respondent-NIA : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Spl. P.P. Mr. Saurav Kumar, Adv. Mr. Manmohit Bhalla, Adv.

¶10

---------

¶11

C.A.V. on 08/10/2025 Pronounced on 03/11/2025 Per Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.

¶12

Heard Mr. Balaji Shrinivasan, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned Spl. P.P. for the National Investigating Agency.

¶13

2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 16.06.2025 passed in Misc. Criminal Application No. 886 of 2025, in connection with R.C. No. 22/2018/NIA/DLI, arising out of Special NIA Case No. 07/2018 (Lawalong P.S. Case No. 18/2017) by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-XVI-cum-Special Judge, NIA, Ranchi, whereby and whereunder the prayer for bail of the appellant has been rejected.

¶14

3. The prosecution case reveals that a credible information was received by SHO, Lawalong Police Station that the terrorists of TPC (Tritiya Prastuti Committee), namely Kohram Ji @

¶15

Ibrahim Ji @ Lallan Ji @ Laxman Ji @ Amar Ganjhu (appellant), Akraman Ji @ Ravinder Ganjhu @ Ramvinayak Singh Bhokta, Karampal @ Danveer Ganjhu and some 15-20 members of TPC have assembled at the residence of Kamlesh Ganjhu in village Tukuliya, Tola Pachpatwa, P.S.- Lawalong, District- Chatra for carrying out a terrorist act. Accordingly, on the direction of S.P., Chatra, a team was constituted which conducted a raid on 14.04.2017 in the house of Kamlesh Ganjhu and as soon as the Police reached the said place the terrorists of TPC started escaping. In the process accused Kamlesh Ganjhu was chased and apprehended. On cursory examination, Kamlesh Ganjhu revealed that TPC terrorists namely, Kohram Ji @ Ibrahim Ji @ Lallan Ji @ Laxman Ji @ Amar Ganjhu, Akraman Ji @ Ravinder Ganjhu @ Ramvinayak Singh Bhokta, Karampal Ganjhu @ Danveer Ganjhu along with 15-20 unknown TPC terrorists who had assembled for carrying out terrorist activities escaped from his house. During the personal search of Kamlesh Ganjhu, one loaded 09 mm pistol along with one magazine containing 03 live rounds and one black colour Samsung mobile phone containing two SIM cards of Airtel were recovered from his possession. At the instance of Kamlesh Ganjhu, the police party searched his house and a cash of Rs. 36,14,000/-, one AK-47 rifle with two magazines and 152 live rounds and one camouflage magazine pouch were recovered. Kamlesh Ganjhu, upon being asked about the recovered cash and arms and ammunitions failed to give any satisfactory answer. During the custodial interrogation, accused Kamlesh Ganjhu revealed that the seized AK-47 rifle, two magazines and 152 live rounds are of Karampal Ganjhu @ Danveer Ganjhu, Zonal Commander of TPC whereas the seized cash of Rs. 36,14,000/- is of TPC Party/commanders namely, Brijesh Ganjhu, Mukesh Ganjhu, Kohram Ji Akraman Ji and Karampal Ganjhu who extorted for furthering subversive activities / carrying out terrorist activities.

¶16

-2-

¶17

4. Based on the aforesaid allegations Lawalong P.S. Case No. 18 of 2017 was instituted for the offences under Sections 385, 386, 387, 120B of the I.P.C., Sections 25(1-B)(a), 26, 35 of the Arms Act, 1959, Sections 16, 17, 20, 21 & 23 of the UA(P) Act, 1967 and Sections 17 (1)(2) of Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1908. After investigation charge-sheet was submitted.

¶18

5. Appreciating the gravity of the offence the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred under sub-section 5 of section 6 read with section 8 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, vide MHA, New Delhi CTCR Division Order No. 11011/42/2018/NIA dated 06.07.2018 directed NIA to take up investigation of the case and consequently Lawalong P.S. Case No. 18/2017 was re-registered as NIA Case No. RC-22/2018/NIA/DLI u/s 385, 386, 387, 120B of the IPC, Sections 25(1-B)(a) 26 & 35 of the Arms Act, 1959, Sections 16, 17, 20, 21 & 23 of the UA(P) Act, 1967 and Sections 17(1)(2) of the CLA Act, 1908.

¶19

6. It has been submitted by Mr. Balaji Shrinivasan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the allegations against the appellant are vague and unsubstantiated and is primarily focused on the angle of conspiracy. The appellant was implicated in another case by the NIA being RC-23/2018/NIA/DLI dated 09.07.2018 with more or less identical allegations as that of the present case in which the appellant has been granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 521 of 2025. All the prosecution witnesses have been examined but the defence witnesses are still to be examined which will undoubtedly delay the trial. It has been submitted that several co-accused persons have been granted bail and the appellant is incarcerated in judicial custody since 07.01.2019.

¶20

7. Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned Spl. P.P. for the N.I.A. has submitted that the allegations against the appellant in the present case is grave and serious and no comparison can be made to the allegations in the case in which the appellant has been

¶21

-3-

¶22

granted bail. Mr. Das has stressed upon the fact that the condition of bail in the other case was of the chance of the trial being concluded in the near future being bleak as several witnesses are still left to be examined while in the present case the prosecution witnesses have already been examined and granting bail to the appellant at this juncture would open up the possibility of the appellant absconding thus delaying the conclusion of the trial. This apprehension according to Mr. Das, learned Spl. P.P. for the NIA is based upon the antecedents of the appellant which is reflected in para 17.7 of the charge-sheet wherein mention has been made of 42 criminal cases against the appellant. According to Mr. Das the details of the cases instituted against the appellant including its status thereof has not been filed through an affidavit by the learned counsel for the appellant and therefore no cognizance can be taken of the same. Referring to the merits of the case submission has been advanced that the appellant is a Regional Commander of TPC who was actively involved in extortion and raising of funds for the terrorist organization and no leniency can be shown to such dreaded member of a terrorist organization. 8. The appellant has been arrayed as A-3 in the charge-sheet submitted by the NIA and the role and activities of the appellant has been depicted at para 17.13 of the charge-sheet which reads as follows:

¶23

17.13 Role and activities of / offences established against Amar Singh Bhokta @ Laxman Ganjhu @ Lallan Ji @ Kohram Ji @ Ibrahim Ji @ Amar Ganjhu S/o Jagan Singh Bhokta @ Jagan Ganjhu (A-3): Therefore, as per the averments made hereinabove/ in the pre-paragraphs, it is established that he is Regional commander of terrorist gang TPC and under his command, his gang members used to extort from contractors engaged in development works viz. road, bridge, dam etc. construction works. He used this extorted amount for procuring Arms and Ammunition for strengthening armed cadre of TPC which is an unlawful association proscribed by Govt. of Jharkhand and raised funds for the terrorist

¶24

-4-

¶25

gang. A-3 in criminal conspiracy with the co-accused persons A-1, A-2, A-4, A-5 and A-6 concealed the huge cash and arms & ammunitions which were derived or obtained by TPC operatives from commission of terrorist act and further criminally conspired with the co-accused for concealing the terrorist fund and arms and ammunitions in the residential premise of A-1 for furtherance of the terrorist activity of TPC. Therefore, it is established that A-3 by becoming member of terrorist gang TPC, assisted in the operations /meetings / management of TPC in criminal conspiracy with members of the terrorist gang including the co-accused persons A-1, A-2, A-4, A-5, A-6 and others with intent to aid the above said terrorist gang and further raised terrorist fund from illegitimate sources through extortion from the contractors engaged in development projects. Thereby accused Amar Singh Bhokta @ Laxman Ganjhu @ Lallan Ji @ Kohram Ji @ Ibrahim Ji @ Amar Ganjhu S/o Jagan Singh Bhokta @ Jagan Ganjhu (A-3) committed offences under Sections 120B r/w 385, 386, 387, 411 & 414 of the I.P.C., 1860, Sections 17, 20 & 21 of the UA(P) Act, 1967 Sections 25(1-A), 25(1B)(a), 26 & 35 of the Arms Act, 1959, and Section 17 of the CLA Act, 1908. Substantive offences under sections 385, 386 & 387, of the I.P.C., 1860, Sections 17, 18, 20 & 21 of the UA(P) Act, 1967 and Section 17 of the CLA Act, 1908.

¶26

9. The appellant is an accused in another case investigated by the NIA being RC-23/2018/NIA/DLI, in which, he had been arrayed as A-6 and the role which was assigned to him is as follows:

¶27

17.12.6 Role and activities of / offences established against Amar Singh Bhokta @ Laxman Ganjhu @ Kohramji @ Ibrahim (A-6): Therefore, as per the averments made hereinabove and as per evidences collected on record during investigation, it is established that he was an armed cadre of CPI (Maoist) and later on he joined TPC and he is Regional Commander of TPC, active in Barkagoan, Simariapurbi, Gidoh, Pathalgada, katkamsandhi and Charahi Paschami, area of Jharkhand. He was also earlier member of CPI (Maoist) and after that joined

¶28

-5-

¶29

TPC. He used to collect levy from Crusher owner, contractors and other businessmen by putting them in fear of death/grievous hurt. He raised funds for TPC through extortion for strengthening the organization by expanding armed cadre and procuring the Arms and ammunition. He was also in regular touch with other co-accused and criminally conspired amongst themselves. As per evidence collected on record he and other co-accused persons gave the extorted money Rs. 7,00,000/- (Rupees seven lakhs) to A-1. TPC operatives including him had concealed the huge cache of arms and ammunition at Lambtitaand hills. Thereby he committed offences under section 120B r/w 386, 411 of IPC, sections 25(1B)(a) and 26 of the Arms Act, Section 17 of CLA Act and sections 17 and 21 of UA(P) Act. He is also liable for substantive offences under section 17, 18 and 20 of UA(P) Act and section 17 of CLA Act.

¶30

10. The appellant has been granted bail in the said case in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 521 of 2025 and the relevant

¶31

reads as follows:

¶32

12. So far as the present appellant is concerned, he is incarcerated in jail since 14-05-2019 and there is no possibility of the trial being concluded in the near future. Apart from the same and as noted by us, conspiracy seems to be the main feature of the allegations made against the appellant. We are aware of the fact that the prayer for bail of two of the co-accused have already been rejected by a Coordinate Bench of this Court, but regard being had to the entire facets of the case, so far as the appellant is concerned, his period of detention and the possibility of conclusion of trial in the near future being bleak, we are inclined to grant bail to the appellant. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 26-03-2025 passed in Misc. Criminal Application No. 315/2025 in connection with R.C. No. 23/2018/NIA/DLI arising out of Special NIA Case No. 08/2018 by Sri Madhuresh Kumar Verma, Learned AJC-XVI cum Special Judge, NIA, Ranchi is quashed and set aside. Accordingly, the appellant is directed to 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 A.J.C.-XVI-cum-Special Judge, NIA, Ranchi in connection with R.C. No.

¶33

-6-

¶34

23/2018/NIA/DLI arising out of Special NIA Case No. 08/2018, subject to the condition that one of the bailers should be a close relative of the appellant and the appellant shall remain physically present before the learned trial court on each and every date till the conclusion of the trial.

¶35

11. In “ Union of India versus K.A. Najeeb ” reported in

¶36

(2021) 3 SCC 713, it has been held as follows:

¶37

“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 powers exercisable 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 rigours 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.

¶38

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.

¶39

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) of the UAPA merely provides another possible ground for the competent court to refuse bail, in addition to the well-

¶40

-7-

¶41

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.

¶42

Conclusion

¶43

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 abovestated directions.

¶44

12. The appellant it seems has completed in custody a period of six years nine months which is beyond the maximum or minimum sentence prescribed for some of the offences he has been charged with. Though all the prosecution witnesses have been examined but the prospect of the trial being concluded any time soon appears to be a bleak possibility. So far as the antecedents are concerned, although it has been stated by the NIA in the charge-sheet that the appellant is involved in 42 cases but the learned counsel for the appellant has refuted such contention by submitting that the appellant has 20 criminal antecedents and he has referred to the chart submitted by him giving a breakup of the status of the cases and it appears that in 11 cases the appellant has been acquitted. In the memo of appeal also mention has been made to the said fact. Mr. Balaji Shrinivasan, learned counsel for the appellant while submitting that despite having criminal antecedents the appellant considering the intervening circumstances deserves to be released on bail has referred to the case of “ Vernon versus The State of Maharashtra & Anr. , reported in (2023) 10 SCR 867, wherein it has been observed as follows:

¶45

-8-

¶46

“44. While forming our opinion over granting bail to the appellants, we have taken into account the fact that that VG was once earlier convicted involving offences, interalia, under 1967 Act and there is also a pending criminal case against him on the allegations of similar line of activities. Hence, we propose to impose appropriate conditions in respect of both, which they shall have to comply with, while on bail. ”

¶47

13. On an overall conspectus of the case particularly considering the period of incarceration undergone by the appellant, we are inclined to admit him on bail. We, therefore, set aside the order dated 16.06.2025 passed in Misc. Criminal Application No. 886 of 2025, in connection with R.C. No. 22/2018/NIA/DLI, arising out of Special NIA Case No. 07/2018 (Lawalong P.S. Case No. 18/2017) by the learned Additional Judicial CommissionerXVI-cum-Special Judge, NIA, Ranchi and direct that the appellant be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-XVIcum-Special Judge, NIA, Ranchi in connection with in connection with R.C. No. 22/2018/NIA/DLI, arising out of Special NIA Case No. 07/2018 (Lawalong P.S. Case No. 18/2017), subject to the condition that the appellant shall physically appear before the learned trial court on each and every date till the conclusion of the

¶48

trial.

¶49

14. This appeal is allowed.

¶50

15. Pending I.A(s), if any, stands closed.

¶51

(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)

¶52

(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)

¶53

High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi Dated, the 3^rd day of November, 2025. A. Sanga/NAFR

¶54

-9-

Kohram Alias Laxman Ganjhu Alias Ibrahim Ji Alias Lallan Ji Alias Amar Singh Bhokta v. Union of India through National Investigating Agency Represented by Superintendent of Police N.I.A.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kohram Alias Laxman Ganjhu Alias Ibrahim Ji Alias Lallan Ji Alias Amar Singh Bhokta v. Union of India through National Investigating Agency Represented by Superintendent of Police N.I.A.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Wasil Xalxo Wasil Xalxo Vs State of Jharkhand

Bandhana Oraon And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand

Birju Murmu And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand

Pratibha Vs Manoj Kumar

Satish Sharma Vs Archana Kumari

Acc Limited through Its Director Plant Mr Manoj Jindal Vs State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Department of Labour and Anr.

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

Wasil Xalxo  Wasil Xalxo Vs State of Jharkhand

Bandhana Oraon And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand

Birju Murmu And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand

Pratibha Vs Manoj Kumar

Satish Sharma Vs Archana Kumari

Acc Limited through Its Director Plant Mr Manoj Jindal Vs State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Department of Labour and Anr.

Wasil Xalxo Wasil Xalxo Vs State of Jharkhand