Dismissed¶136

Tarun Kumar Alias Tarun v. the Union of India through National Investigation Agency

Jharkhand HC20 Apr 2026Cr.A(DB)/39/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

UAPA bail; Section 21(4) and 21(5) NIA Act appeal; Article 21 versus Section 43D(5) UA(P) Act; prolonged incarceration three years nine months; delay in trial not a trump card; Gulfisha Fatima; Gurwinder Singh; Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb; CBI v. Dayamoy Mahato; CPI (Maoist) revival conspiracy; levy and extortion; CFSL handwriting and voice matching; protected witnesses; trial at fag end with about 30 witnesses remaining; Section 311 Cr.P.C. / Section 348 BNSS recall applications; neutral citation 2026:JHHC:11509-DB.

What did the court decide?

The delay of 49 days in preferring the appeal is condoned in view of the reason assigned and the purport of Section 21(5) of the NIA Act, 2008; I.A. No. 16820 of 2025 is allowed. ¶19

Tarun Kumar Alias Tarun Vs the Union of India through National Investigation Agency — Jharkhand HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶136

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay of 49 days in preferring the criminal appeal under Section 21(4) of the NIA Act, 2008 ought to be condoned under Section 21(5) of the NIA Act, 2008. +1 more

¶16

Court's answer

The delay of 49 days in preferring the appeal is condoned in view of the reason assigned and the purport of Section 21(5) of the NIA Act, 2008; I.A. No. 16820 of 2025 is allowed.

¶19

Ratio / Principle

Mere delay in trial pertaining to grave offences, as involved in the instant case, cannot be used as a ground to grant bail.

¶112

Key takeaways

Where the security of society and the nation is implicated, prolonged custody cannot by itself constitute a ground for release; the culpability of the appellant in the alleged commission of the crime must be duly considered.ratio¶128
While Article 21 rights must always be protected, in cases where the security of the society and nation is called into question, long incarceration cannot be the sole ground of consideration; the rights of an individual are subservient to the nation/societal interest.ratio¶117

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Jharkhand (Division Bench, per Sujit Narayan Prasad J.; Sanjay Prasad J. concurring) condones a 49-day delay under Section 21(5) of the NIA Act, 2008 but dismisses the successive bail appeal of Tarun Kumar @ Tarun (A-1) under Section 21(4) of the NIA Act, 2008 against rejection of his renewed bail application in Special (NIA) Case No. 01 of 2022 (RC-05/2021/NIA/RNC; offences under Sections 16, 17, 18, 20, 38, 39 & 40 of the UA(P) Act). Relying on Gulfisha Fatima and Gurwinder Singh, the Court holds that in prosecutions alleging offences implicating the sovereignty, integrity or security of the State, delay in trial is not a trump card that automatically displaces the statutory restraint of Section 43D(5); with the charge-sheet alleging conspiracy, levy/extortion collection for the banned CPI (Maoist) and only about 30 prosecution witnesses left to be examined, prolonged custody of about three years and nine months cannot by itself secure bail. Individual rights are held subservient to national and societal interest; the question of trial delay attributable to Section 311 Cr.P.C. applications is expressly left open.

¶1

2026:JHHC:11509-DB

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 39 of 2026

¶3

……..

¶4

Tarun Kumar @ Tarun, aged about 31 years, S/o Pradyuman Sharma @ Saket @ Kundan R/o Village Rustampur, PO & PS Hulasganj, DistrictJehanabad, Bihar . …. --Appellant

¶5

Versus

¶6

The Union of India through National Investigation Agency

¶7

…. --Respondent

¶8

¶9

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

¶10

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD

¶11

¶12

For the Appellant: Mr. Jitendra Shankar Singh, Advocate Mr. Shailesh Poddar, Advocate For the NIA: Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate Mr. Saurav Kumar, Advocate ---

¶13

07 / 20.04.2026

¶14

Per Sujit Narayan Prasad J

¶15

I.A. No. 16820 of 2025

¶16

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.

¶17

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶18

Considering the reason assigned in the interlocutory application and

¶19

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.

¶20

Accordingly, I.A. No. 16820 of 2025 stands allowed.

¶21

Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 39 of 2026

¶22

¶23

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.

¶24

Factual Matrix

¶25

The brief facts of the case as per the pleading made in the Memo of Appeal, reads hereunder as :-

¶26

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).

¶27

¶28

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 1^st 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).

¶29

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.

¶30

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.

¶31

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.

¶32

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.

¶33

¶34

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.

¶35

Submission of the learned counsel for the appellant:

¶36

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 14^th November, 2024.

¶37

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.

¶38

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.

¶39

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.

¶40

¶41

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.

¶42

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.

¶43

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.

¶44

Submission of the learned counsel for the respondent:

¶45

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.

¶46

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

¶47

¶48

interfere with the aforesaid order, therefore the order impugned requires no interference by this Court.

¶49

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.

¶50

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.

¶51

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.

¶52

It has been submitted that the moment the application under Section

¶53

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

¶54

¶55

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 crossexamination 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.

¶56

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.

¶57

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

¶58

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.

¶59

¶60

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: -

¶61

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:-

¶62

“ 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.------

¶63

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.

¶64

17.4.8: Statement of Protected Witness "A" (Hereinafter referred to

¶65

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 the

¶66

¶67

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.

¶68

17.4.9: Examination of Protected Witness "B" (Hereinafter referred

¶69

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.

¶70

17.4.10: Statement of Protected Witness "C" (Hereinafter referred

¶71

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

¶72

¶73

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.”

¶74

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

¶75

¶76

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.”

¶77

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 excadres of CPI (Maoist) for the revival of the above organization.

¶78

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).

¶79

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.

¶80

35. It is revealed during the investigation that Ms Puja Kumari d/oPramod 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.

¶81

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

¶82

¶83

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.

¶84

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

¶85

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.

¶86

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.

¶87

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.

¶88

This Court, considering the nature of seriousness of allegation and

¶89

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.

¶90

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 :-

¶91

¶92

“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.

¶93

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.”

¶94

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.

¶95

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.

¶96

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

¶97

of Gurwinder Singh v. State of Punjab 2024 SCC OnLine SC 109 has 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:

¶98

¶99

“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.

¶100

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.

¶101

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.

¶102

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.

¶103

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,

¶104

¶105

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.

¶106

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.

¶107

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."

¶108

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:

¶109

¶110

"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."

¶111

Thus, on the basis of the aforesaid settled position of law, it is evident

¶112

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.

¶113

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.

¶114

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.

¶115

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

¶116

¶117

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.

¶118

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.

¶119

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.

¶120

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.

¶121

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.

¶122

¶123

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 counteraffidavit 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:

¶124

“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.”

¶125

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.

¶126

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

¶127

¶128

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.

¶129

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.

¶130

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.

¶131

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.

¶132