Nowel Sandi Purty Alias Novel Sandi Purty Alias Suleman Sandi Purty Alias Koche Alias Abhiram Vs the State of Jharkhand

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

¶5

Versus

¶6

¶7

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD

¶8

¶9

For the Appellant : Mr. Gautam Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, A.P.P.

¶10

¶11

Order No. 02 / Dated 17^th April, 2026

¶12

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.

¶13

Factual Matrix

¶14

2. The prosecution case in brief is that the on the basis of selfstatement 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

¶15

1

¶16

2026:JHHC:11430-DB

¶17

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.

¶18

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.

¶19

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.

¶20

2

¶21

2026:JHHC:11430-DB

¶22

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.

¶23

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.

¶24

Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner:

¶25

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.

¶26

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.

¶27

Submission of the learned counsel for the state:

¶28

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.

¶29

3

¶30

2026:JHHC:11430-DB

¶31

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.

¶32

Analysis

¶33

11. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material available on record.

¶34

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:

¶35

“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.

¶36

9. Accordingly, the instant appeal stands dismissed”

¶37

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.

¶38

4

¶39

2026:JHHC:11430-DB

¶40

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.

¶41

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.

¶42

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:

¶43

"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."

¶44

5

¶45

2026:JHHC:11430-DB

¶46

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.

¶47

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.

¶48

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.

¶49

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.

¶50

6

¶51

2026:JHHC:11430-DB

¶52

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.

¶53

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.

¶54

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.

¶55

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.

¶56

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

¶57

7

¶58

2026:JHHC:11430-DB

¶59

likelihood of tampering with the evidence, particularly in view of the appellant’s involvement in twenty cases of like nature.

¶60

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.

¶61

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.

¶62

28. Accordingly, the instant appeal is, hereby, dismissed.

¶63

29. However, learned Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial.

¶64

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)

¶65

(Sanjay Prasad, J.)

¶66

Dated 17.04.2026

¶67

Kamlesh/