Vikash Anand Ojha Alias Abhishek Alias Chhote Alias Chhotu Vs Union of India through National Investigating Agency, New Delhi

2026:JHHC:11313-DB

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 457 of 2026

Vikash Anand Ojha @ Abhishek @ Chhote @ Chhotu, aged about 33 years, son of - Loknath Ojha resident of quarter no. F-171, Hanuman Mandir, Hanuman Garhi PTPS Patratu, P.O. + P.S. – Patratu, District – Ramgarh, Jharkhand.

¶4

… … Appellant

¶5

Versus

¶6

Union of India through National Investigating Agency, New Delhi … … Respondents

¶7

¶8

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

¶9

¶10

For the Appellant : Mr. Birendra Kumar, Advocate For the Res-NIA : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate

¶11

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

¶12

Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J:

¶13

I.A. No. 4862 of 2026

¶14

1. This interlocutory application has been preferred under Section 21(5) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 for condoning the delay of 12 days in preferring the instant criminal appeal.

¶15

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶16

3. Considering the reason assigned at paragraphs 3 of the interlocutory application and taking into consideration the purport of Section 21(5) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, the delay of 12 days in preferring the appeal is hereby condoned.

¶17

4. I.A. No. 4862 of 2026 stands allowed.

¶18

1 -

¶19

2026:JHHC:11313-DB

¶20

Prayer

¶21

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 25.11.2025 passed in Misc. Cr. Application No.2140 of 2025 by learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-XVI-cumSpecial Judge, NIA Cases, Ranchi whereby and whereunder the prayer for bail, in connection with NIA Case RC01/2021/NIA/RNC registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 353, 504, 506, 307, 427, 435, 386, 387, 120B, 121A and 216 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 25(1)(b), 26, 27 and 35 of the Arms Act, Section 3 & 4 of Explosive Substance Act, Section 10, 13, 16(1)(b), 20 and 23 of UA(P) Act and Section 17 of CLA Act, 1908, has been rejected.

¶22

Facts:

¶23

6. The prosecution case is based on the information received by Balumath police station that at about 19 hours on 18.12.2020, some unknown persons were burning vehicles by firing indiscriminately near check post no.1, Tetariakhand colliery. Assailants fired on the police party that had rushed to the spot. Accused persons had burnt four Trucks one motorcycle and injured four civilians. The remnants of the burnt vehicles, fragments of a cane bomb with wire, a white colour empty gallon of approx 02 liters, spent cartridges and three hand written pamphlets

¶24

2 -

¶25

2026:JHHC:11313-DB

¶26

containing threats to the transporters and coal companies, involved in the mining area signed by one Pradip Ganjhu (A3) were found from the spot. Upon further inquiry, it was revealed that gangster Sujit Sinha(A-1) and Aman Sahu @Aman Sao(A-2) had conspired with accused Pradeep Ganjhu (A-3) and his associates namely Santosh Ganjhu, Bihari Ganjhu, Sakendra Ganjhu, Pramod Ganjhu and others to collect extortion from CCL transporters, contractors, DO holders and disruption of legitimate works.

¶27

7. Accordingly, Balumath PS case no 234/2020 dated 19.12.2020 was registered u/s 147, 148, 149, 353, 504, 506, 307, 427, 435, 386, 387 and 120B of IPC section 27 of Arms Act, Section 3/4 of the Explosive Substance Act, against Sujit Sinha, Aman Sahu @ Aman Sao, Pradeep Ganjhu, Santosh Ganjhu, Bihari Ganjhu, Pramod Ganjhu, and some other unknown accused persons.

¶28

8. The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), Government of India, in view of the gravity of the offence and its cross border and international ramification, issued orders in exercise of power vested under Section 6(5) read with section 8 of the NIA Act 2008 and directed the NIA to take up the investigation of the aforesaid case.

¶29

9. On the direction of the Ministry of Home Affairs, NIA reregistered the case being RC-01/2021/NIA-RNC dated 04.03.2021 under section 147, 148, 149, 353, 504, 506, 307,

¶30

3 -

¶31

2026:JHHC:11313-DB

¶32

427, 435, 386, 387, 120B, 121A, 216 of IPC Section 25(1)(b), 26, 27 and 35 of Arms Act section 3 & 4 of Explosive Substance Act section 17 CLA Act and section 10, 13, 16(1), (b), 20 and 23 UA(P) Act.

¶33

10. After investigation NIA submitted 2^nd supplementary charge-sheet against Pankaj Karmali @ Khetia (A-23), Akash Kumar Roy @ Monu Roy (A-27) Kundan Kumar (A-28) and

¶34

Vikash Anand Ojha @ Abhishek (A-26) (present petitioner)

¶35

11. The appellant has been apprehended and taken into custody on 18.12.2021, i.e., after taking over the investigation by the NIA and, as such, prayer for bail was made but the same has been rejected vide order dated 25.11.2025 against which the present appeal has been filed.

¶36

Submission of the learned counsel for the appellant:

¶37

12. Mr. Birendra Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant has contended that in the present case the prayer for regular bail of the appellant has been considered in the earlier round of application being Cr. Appeal (DB) No.744 of 2023 but was rejected vide order dated 28.02.2024.

¶38

13. The said order was challenged by filing Special Leave Petition being S.L.P.(Criminal) Diary No.31833 of 2024 but the Hon'ble Apex Court although has declined to interfere with the order but while dismissing the appeal, liberty was given to the appellant to renew the prayer for bail if the trial is prolonged.

¶39

4 -

¶40

2026:JHHC:11313-DB

¶41

14. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant, by referring paragraph 2 of the memo of appeal, has submitted that there are altogether 325 witnesses against which only 28 witnesses have been examined whereas the appellant is in judicial custody since 18.12.2021. Thus, he has already remained in custody for about last four years.

¶42

15. 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.

¶43

Submission of the learned counsel for the respondent:

¶44

16. 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.

¶45

17. He has submitted that the factual aspect of the matter, particularly, the culpability committed by the appellant has been brought on record in the counter affidavit.

¶46

18. He has submitted that the entire allegation and the implication of the present appellant is based upon the valid ground as has been taken note by this Court in the order

¶47

5 -

¶48

2026:JHHC:11313-DB

¶49

dated 28.02.2024 passed in Criminal Appeal (DB) No.744 of 2023 as appended to the paper book as Annexure-1.

¶50

19. He has submitted in response to the argument advanced regarding the number of witnesses and the witnesses who have already been examined, that although the number of charge-sheeted witnesses was 325 but subsequently and in pursuance to the order passed by this Court dated 25.03.2025 passed in Criminal Appeal (DB) No.226 of 2025, a sincere endeavour has been taken by taking decision to prune the number of witnesses and now it has been reduced to 127 witnesses.

¶51

20. He has submitted that out of 127 witnesses; 32 witnesses have already been examined as on the date.

¶52

21. The submission has been made that so far as the applicability of the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court

¶53

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.

¶54

Analysis:

¶55

22. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the finding recorded by learned Special Judge as available in the impugned order.

¶56

6 -

¶57

2026:JHHC:11313-DB

¶58

23. This Court, before proceeding to consider the application made on the basis of the liberty granted by Hon'ble Apex Court in filing the appeal on the ground of prolonged incarceration is concerned, 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 28.02.2024 passed in Criminal Appeal (DB) No.744 of 2023. For ready reference, the part of the said order is being referred herein :-

¶59

“ 40. From perusal of record, it is evident that the extract of the supplementary charge-sheet is part of the counter affidavit as appended as Annexure-A. It appears from paragraph 17.23 that it has come on record that Vikash Anand Ojha @ Abhishek (A-26) [appellant herein] from January/February, 2021 to July, 2021, received multiple consignments of arms and ammunition from MP and Maharashtra and provided to Akash Kumar Roy @ Monu (A-27), Kundan Kumar (A-28) and others in the name of Abhishek. Akash Kumar Roy @ Monu (A-27), Kundan Kumar (A-28) and further provided these arms and ammunition to Shahrukh Ansari, the then absconding accused and other gang members. Vikash Anand Ojha @ Abhishek (A-26) was arrested by a team of Special Cell, Delhi Police from Chopda, Maharashtra.

¶60

41. It has further been revealed as has been referred under paragraph 17.24 of the supplementary chargesheet that Akash Kumar Roy @ Monu (A-27), Kundan Kumar (A28) also arranged a flat at Namkum (Ranchi) for the criminal activities of the terrorist gang. Both of them facilitated safe stay/harbor to Shahrukh Ansari, the then absconding accused in the instant case in the said flat at Namkum, Ranchi. In this flat, accused Vikash Anand Ojha @ Abhishek (A-26) visited the said flat at Namkum, Ranchi and supplied arms and ammunition during his visit in

¶61

7 -

¶62

2026:JHHC:11313-DB

¶63

June/July 2021. On 19.07.2021 this flat was raided by Police of PS Namkum and arrested Kundan Kumar (A-28) with the arms and ammunition supplied by Vikash Anand Ojha @ Abhishek(A-26). However, accused Shahrukh Ansari and Akash Kumar Roy @ Monu(A-27) managed to escape from this flat. A separate case no.187/2021 dated 19.07.2021 was registered by Namkum Police against Akash Kumar Roy @ Monu (A-27), Kundan (A-28) and others. It appears from Paragraph 17.26 that Kundan Kumar (A-28) received Shahrukh Ansari from Ratu Talab, Ratu in Ranchi and brought him at Namkum flat for facilitating his safe stay/harbor for further criminal activities. Kundan Kumar (A-28) was tasked to supply arms and ammunition to the Sujit Sinha and Aman Sahu gang. 42. The investigation further revealed, as has been referred at paragraph 17.36, wherein the complicity of Kundan Kumar (A-28) has been referred who has been seen with Akash Kumar Roy @ Monu. It has also come that during the photo identification proceeding in presence of independent witnesses, protected witness "C" identified the photograph of Vikash Anand Ojha @ Abhishek (A-26) and stated that in the month of June/July 2021, he saw him with Akash Kumar Roy @ Monu Roy (A-27) and Kundan Kumar (A-28) in the said flat. He has also corroborated the fact that he saw him before the raid by Namkum Police in the flat, this person was also present in the said flat in Namkum with Akash Kumar Roy @ Monu Roy (A-27) and Kundan Kumar (A-28). Paragraph 17.22, 17.23, 17.24, 17.25, 17.31, 17.32, 17.36 and 18.1 are quoted hereunder

¶64

as :-

¶65

“ 17.22 During the investigation, it has come on record that in the month of November, 2020, on the direction of Aman Sahu, Shahrukh Ansari along with accused Wasim Ansari of Kanbhita received 20 mobiles and Rs. 70,000/- from Abhishek Singh (A-26) at Ratu talab, Ranchi. Further, on the direction of Aman Sahu, Abhishek Singh (A-26) provided three pistols, two single shot country-made Kattas with 20 round of each and Rs. 50.000/- cash. to Shahrukh Ansari (A21) for carrying out firing and arson at

¶66

8 -

¶67

2026:JHHC:11313-DB

¶68

Tetariyakhad, at Ratu Talab, Ranchi . Vikash Anand Ojha @ Abhishek(A-26) stated that on the direction of Aman Sahu, he provided logistic support and had been supplying arms and ammunition to the gang since 2019 .

¶69

17.23 During the investigation, it has come on record that Vikash Anand Ojha @ Abhishek (A-26) from January/February, 2021 to July, 2021, received multiple consignments of arms and ammunition from MP and Maharashtra and provided to Akash Kumar Roy @ Monu (A-27), Kundan Kumar (A-28) and others in the name of Abhishek . Akash Kumar Roy @ Monu (A27). Kundan Kumar (A-28) further provided these arms and ammunition to Shahrukh Ansari, the then absconding accused and other gang members. Vikash Anand Ojha @ Abhishek (A-26) was arrested by a team of Special Cell, Delhi Police from Chopda, Maharashtra in its case No. 225 of 2021 dated 26.08.2021 having in possession 20 semi-automatic/country made pistols, 50 live rounds, One Xiaomi smart phone alongwith 02 Airtel Sim cards .

¶70

17.24 Investigation has revealed that Akash Kumar Roy @ Monu (A-27), Kundan kumar (A-28) also arranged a flat at Namkum (Ranchi) for the criminal activities of the terrorist gang. Both of them facilitated safe stay/harbor to Shahrukh Ansari, the then absconding accused in the instant case in the said flat at Namkum, Ranchi. In this flat, accused Vikash Anand Ojha @ Abhishek (A-26) visited the said flat at Nankum, Ranchi and supplied arms and ammunition during his visit in June/July 2021 . On 19.07.2021 this flat was raided by Police of PS Namkum and arrested Kundan Kumar (A-28) with the arms and ammunition supplied by Vikash Anand Ojha @ Abhishek (A-26). Shahrukh Ansari and Akash Kumar Roy @ Monu (A-27) managed to escape from this flat. A separate case no.187/2021, dated 19.07.2021 was registered by Namkum Police against Akash Kumar Roy @ Monu (A-27), Kundan (A-28) and others.

¶71

17.25 Investigation has revealed that Akash Kumar Roy @Monu(A-27) stated that he came in contact with Sujit Sinha while he was running Food Valley Restaurant at Jail

¶72

9 -

¶73

2026:JHHC:11313-DB

¶74

Mor, Ranchi. In 2017, he received a WhatsApp call from Sujit Sinha from Hazaribagh Jail in which, Sujit Sinha requested him to bring his wife Riya Sinha to Hazaribagh Jail for meeting. During this process, Sujit Sinha asked him to work with him and to demand extortion in his name. For this purpose, Akash Kumar Roy @ Monu(A-27)arranged SIM cards from Jamshedpur and distributed the same amongst the gang members. Thereafter, he along with other gang members demanded extortion from businessmen of Palamu, Daltonganj. He was arrested by Palamu Police on the complaint of owner of Palamu Agency. In 2019 also he was arrested by Jamshedpur Police in forged SIM card case which were arranged by him for the purpose of demanding extortion.

¶75

17.32 Investigation revealed that Vikash Anand Ojha @ Abhishek(A-26)was using Airtel mobile numbers 8862822874 and 8116049395 post Tetariyakhad incident in supplying of arms and ammunition to this terrorist gan g. The call data records of these mobile numbers were sought from the service provider. On analysis, his location as per the call data of said mobile numbers it revealed that he had gone to Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh in January/February, April, June, July and August 2021 till his arrest with arms and ammunition by Special Cell of Delhi Police from Chopda, Maharashtra.

¶76

17.36 During investigation, it has come on record that Protected witness "C" stated that Akash Kumar Roy a Monu Roy (A-27) and Kundan Kumar (A-28) arranged a flat at Namkum, Ranchi on forged ID proof. He saw other persons with Akash Kumar Roy @Monu Roy (A-27) and Kundan Kumar (A-28) at this flat During, the photo identification proceeding in presence of independent witnesses, protected witness "C" identified the photograph of Vikash Anand Ojha @ Abhishek (A-26) and stated that in the month of June/July 2021, he saw him with Akash Kumar Roy @ Monu Roy (A-27) and Kundan Kumar (A-28) in the said flat. He also identified the photograph of Shahrukh Ansari and stated that he saw him before the raid by Namkum Police in this flat, this person was also present at the said flat in Namkum with Akash Kumar Roy Monu Roy (A-27) and Kundan Kumar (A-28).”

¶77

10 -

¶78

2026:JHHC:11313-DB

¶79

17.38 During the course of investigation report of explosive section of SFSL, Ranchi was obtained which establishes the presence of high explosive mixture of Nitrocellulose, Nitroglycerine and Potassium nitrate alongwith Ammonium Nitrate in the Cane bomb exploded at the terror site. The electric wires seized from the scene of crime were also found in working condition which can be used in electrical circuit. The analysis of swabs obtained from hole mark of trucks also confirmed the detection of Lead and Copper in the swab which concluded that the holes were caused due to impact of bullet during firing.

¶80

18. Charge:

¶81

18.1 Investigation brought on record that Pankaj Karmali @ Khetin (A-23), Vikash Anand Ojha @ Abhishek (A-26). Akash Kumar Roy @ Monu Roy (A-27) and Kundan Kumar (A-28) alongwith other known and unknown accused persons were found to be involved in the criminal conspiracy by forming a terrorist gang, rioting with deadly weapons, disruption of government work, assault on government functionaries, attempt to murder, mischief by fire and explosive substance, extortion of money, harboring to the absconder, supplying of firearms, having in possession and use of firearms, causing explosion and carrying out terrorist acts. They have committed offences under various sections of law as mentioned against them and are thus charged:

¶82

A-26-Vikash Anand Ojha @ Abhishek S/o late Loknath Ojha Charged under Section:

¶83

Sec 120B read with 212, 384 of Indian Penal Code Sec 120B of IPC r/w 25(1)(B), 26of Arms Act, Sec 17, 18, 19, 20 of UA(P) Act, 1967.

¶84

43. It is thus evident from the imputation against the appellant, as referred in the paragraphs as quoted herein above, that it has come in the course of investigation on the direction of Aman Sahu, Shahrukh Ansari along with accused Wasim Ansari of Kanbhita received 20 mobiles and Rs. 70,000/- from Abhishek Singh (A-26) at Ratu talab, Ranchi. Further, on the direction of Aman Sahu, Abhishek Singh (A-26) provided three pistols, two single shot countrymade Kattas with 20 rounds of each and Rs. 50.000/-

¶85

11 -

¶86

2026:JHHC:11313-DB

¶87

cash. to Shahrukh Ansari (A-21) for carrying out firing and arson at Tetariyakhad, at Ratu Talab, Ranchi. Vikash Anand Ojha @ Abhishek(A-26) stated that on the direction of Aman Sahu, he provided logistic support and had been supplying arms and ammunition to the gang since 2019. Further, Vikash Anand Ojha @ Abhishek (A-26) from January/February, 2021 to July, 2021, received multiple consignments of arms and ammunition from MP and Maharashtra and provided to Akash Kumar Roy @ Monu (A-27), Kundan Kumar (A-28) and others in the name of Abhishek. It has further come in investigation that Vikash Anand Ojha @ Abhishek (A-26) (appellant) was arrested by a team of Special Cell, Delhi Police from Chopda, Maharashtra in its case No. 225 of 2021 dated 26.08.2021 having in possession 20 semi-automatic/country made pistols, 50 live rounds, One Xiaomi smart phone alongwith 02 Airtel Sim cards. Accused- Akash Kumar Roy @ Monu (A-27), Kundan kumar (A-28) also arranged a flat at Namkum (Ranchi) for the criminal activities of the terrorist gang, which was visited by appellant- Vikash Anand Ojha @ Abhishek (A-26) and supplied arms and ammunition during his visit in June/July 2021. On 19.07.2021 this flat was raided by Police of PS Namkum and arrested Kundan Kumar (A-28) with the arms and ammunition supplied by Vikash Anand Ojha @ Abhishek (A-26). Investigation further reveals that Vikash Anand Ojha @ Abhishek(A-26) was using Airtel mobile numbers 8862822874 and 8116049395 post Tetariyakhad incident in supplying of arms and ammunition to this terrorist gang. On analysis, his location as per the call data of said mobile numbers it revealed that he had gone to Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh in January/February, April, June, July and August 2021 till his arrest with arms and ammunition by Special Cell of Delhi Police from Chopda, Maharashtra. During investigation, it has come on record that the protected witness "C" identified the photograph of Vikash Anand Ojha @ Abhishek (A-26) and stated that in the month of June/July 2021, he saw him with Akash Kumar Roy @ Monu Roy (A-27) and Kundan Kumar (A-28) in the

¶88

12 -

¶89

2026:JHHC:11313-DB

¶90

said flat. On the aforesaid allegation the accused Vikash Anand Ojha @ Abhishek (A-26) alongwith other known and unknown accused persons were found to be involved in the criminal conspiracy by forming a terrorist gang, rioting with deadly weapons, disruption of government work, assault on government functionaries, attempt to murder, mischief by fire and explosive substance, extortion of money, harboring to the absconder, supplying of firearms, having in possession and use of firearms, causing explosion and carrying out terrorist acts accordingly charge was framed against him.”

¶91

24. This Court, considering the nature of seriousness of allegation and considering the same an act squarely attracting the ingredient of Section 15 of the UA(P) Act, 1967, has declined to allow the aforesaid bail by rejecting it.

¶92

25. The appellant has moved to Hon'ble Apex Court by filing Special Leave Petition being S.L.P.(Criminal) Diary No.31833 of 2024. The Hon'ble Apex Court, after going through the reason upon which the prayer for bail was declined to be allowed, has declined to interfere with the said order. However, liberty was granted to renew the prayer for bail on the ground of prolonged incarceration, for ready reference, the order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court is being referred herein which reads as under :-

¶93

“Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner.

¶94

Delay condoned.

¶95

We do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order at this stage. However, if the trial is prolonged, liberty is given to the petitioner to renew his prayer for bail.

¶96

13 -

¶97

2026:JHHC:11313-DB

¶98

The Special Leave Petition is, accordingly, dismissed with the aforesaid liberty.

¶99

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed

¶100

of.”

¶101

26. 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.

¶102

27. 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.

¶103

28. 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 of Gurwinder Singh v. State of Punjab 2024 SCC OnLine SC 109 has categorically observed that if prosecutions alleging offences which implicate the

¶104

14 -

¶105

2026:JHHC:11313-DB

¶106

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:

¶107

“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.

¶108

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.

¶109

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

¶110

15 -

¶111

2026:JHHC:11313-DB

¶112

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.

¶113

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, 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.

¶114

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.

¶115

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."

¶116

29. It requires to refer herein that the Hon'ble Apex Court in

¶117

the case of Gurwinder Singh v. State of Punjab(supra)

¶118

16 -

¶119

2026:JHHC:11313-DB

¶120

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:

¶121

"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."

¶122

30. 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.

¶123

31. 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

¶124

17 -

¶125

2026:JHHC:11313-DB

¶126

legitimate at that, about public order, societal security, overall peace and the general deterrent force in criminal law.

¶127

32. 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.

¶128

33. 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.

¶129

34. 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.

¶130

35. 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.

¶131

18 -

¶132

2026:JHHC:11313-DB

¶133

36. 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.

¶134

37. 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 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.

¶135

38. Mr. Das, learned counsel for the NIA, has submitted by referring to the order dated 25.03.2025 passed in Criminal Appeal (DB) No.226 of 2025 pertaining to the same F.I.R., the subject matter of the present appeal, pressed by the same counsel, namely, Birendra Kumar, wherein the prayer for bail filed on behalf of the appellant of the said criminal appeal, namely, Kundan Kumar, was withdrawn based upon the

¶136

19 -

¶137

2026:JHHC:11313-DB

¶138

submission made by the learned counsel for the NIA that all sincere endeavour will be taken to expedite the trial, for ready reference the said order is being referred herein :-

¶139

“1. The instant appeal under section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 has been directed against the order dated 12.09.2024 passed by the learned Addl. Judicial Commissioner-XVI-cum-Special Judge, NIA, Ranchi in M.C.A No.2362 of 2024 whereby and whereunder the prayer for regular bail of the appellant in connection with NIA Case No.RC-01/2021/NIA/RNC [Special (NIA) Case No.01 of 2021] arising out of Balumath P.S Case No.234 of 2020 registered for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 353, 504, 506, 307, 427, 435, 386, 387, 120B, 121A and 216 of the IPC, Sections 25(1)(b), 26, 27 and 35 of the Arms Act, section 3 & 4 of the Explosive Substance Act, Section 10, 13, 16(1)(b), 20 and 23 of UA(P) Act and Section 17 of CLA Act, 1908 has been rejected.

¶140

Mr. Birendra Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, at the outset, has submitted that earlier the prayer for bail of the present appellant has been dealt with by this Court but the same was rejected vide order dated 30.06.2023 passed in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 298 of 2023 which is appended as Annexure-1 to the present memo of appeal.

¶141

It has been submitted that there is no new ground save and except the issue of expeditious trial.

¶142

Mr. Amit Kumar Das, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-NIA has submitted that all sincere endeavour will be taken to expedite the trial.

¶143

Upon this, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant seeks leave of this Court not to press the instant criminal appeal.

¶144

Leave, as prayed for, is granted.

¶145

Accordingly, the instant criminal appeal is dismissed as not pressed and disposed of as such.”

¶146

39. Mr. Das, learned counsel for the NIA, has submitted

¶147

that a sincere endeavour has been made by substantially

¶148

pruning the list of witnesses, reducing their number from 325

¶149

20 -

¶150

2026:JHHC:11313-DB

¶151

to 127. This reduction has been made after a rigorous exercise and more than half of the witnesses have been reduced.

¶152

40. The submission has been made that 32 witnesses, as of now, have already been examined out of 127 witnesses.

¶153

41. The question of long incarceration is the ground agitated in the present appeal.

¶154

42. The applicability of the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb [Supra] has been raised.

¶155

43. This Court, in order to examine the applicability of the said judgment on the basis of applicability of the factual aspect involved in the present case and by making comparison with the fact based upon which the order was passed to release the appellant, namely, K.A. Najeeb, on bail, has gone through the factual aspect as involved in the case of

¶156

Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb [Supra], for ready reference, the same is being referred herein :-

¶157

“ 2. The prosecution case in brief is that one Professor T.J. Joseph while framing the Malayalam question paper for the second semester BCom examination at Newman College, Thodupuzha, had included a question which was considered objectionable against a particular religion by certain sections of society. The respondent in association with other members of the Popular Front of India (PFI), decided to avenge this purported act of blasphemy. On 4-7-2010 at about 8 a.m., a group of people with a common object, attacked the victim professor while he was returning home with his mother and sister after attending Sunday mass at a local Church. Over

¶158

21 -

¶159

2026:JHHC:11313-DB

¶160

the course of the attack, members of the PFI forcefully intercepted the victim's car, restrained him and chopped off his right palm with choppers, knives and a small axe. Country-made bombs were also hurled at bystanders to create panic and terror in their minds and to prevent them from coming to the aid of the victim. An FIR was consequently lodged against the attackers by the victim professor's wife under Sections 143, 147, 148, 120-B, 341, 427, 323, 324, 326, 506 Part II, 307, 149 IPC; and Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act.

¶161

3. It emerged over the course of investigation that the attack was part of a larger conspiracy involving meticulous preplanning, numerous failed attempts and use of dangerous weapons. Accordingly, several dozen persons including the present respondent were arraigned by the police. It was alleged that the respondent was one of the main conspirators and the provisions contained in Sections 153-A, 201, 202, 212 IPC, along with Sections 16, 18, 18-B, 19 and 20 of the UAPA were also thus invoked against him. However, owing to him being untraceable, the respondent was declared an absconder and his trial was split up from the rest of his co-conspirators. The co-accused of the respondent were tried and most of them were found guilty by the Special Court, NIA vide order dated 30-4-2015 and were awarded cumulative sentence ranging between two and eight years' rigorous imprisonment.

¶162

4. The respondent could be arrested on 10-4-2015 only and a charge-sheet was re-filed by the National Investigation Agency against him, pursuant to which the respondent is now facing trial. The respondent approached the Special Court and the High Court for bail as many as six times between 2015 and 2019, seeking leniency on grounds of his limited role in the offence and claiming parity with other co-accused who had been enlarged on bail or acquitted. Save for the impugned order, bail was declined to the respondent, observing that prima facie he had prior knowledge of the offence, had assisted and facilitated the attack, arranged vehicle and sim cards, himself waited near the place of occurrence, transported the perpetrators, sheltered, and medically assisted them afterwards. The courts were, therefore, of the

¶163

22 -

¶164

2026:JHHC:11313-DB

¶165

view that the bar against grant of bail under Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA was attracted.

¶166

5. The respondent again approached the High Court in May 2019 for the third time, questioning the Special Court's order denying bail. The High Court through the impugned order [ K.A. Najeeb v. Union of India , Criminal Appeal No. 659 of 2019, order dated 23-7-2019 (Ker)], released the respondent on bail noting that the trial was yet to begin though the respondent had been in custody for four years. Placing emphasis on the mandate for an expeditious trial under the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, the High Court held that the respondent undertrial could not be kept in custody for too long when the trial was not likely to commence in the near future, for not doing so would cause serious prejudice and suffering to him. The operation of the aforementioned bail order was, however, stayed [ Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb , 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1956] by this Court. Resultantly, the respondent has spent nearly five years and five months in judicial custody.

¶167

44. It is evident that in the said case the background was that the co-accused had already been convicted by inflicting the sentence of 8 years. However, the respondent namely K.A. Najeeb was declared an absconder and his trial was split up from the rest of his co-conspirators. The co-accused of the respondent were tried and most of them were found guilty by the Special Court, NIA vide order dated 30-4-2015 and were awarded cumulative sentence ranging between two and eight years' rigorous imprisonment.

¶168

45. The respondent K.A. Najeeb could be arrested on 10-42015 only and a charge-sheet was re-filed by the National Investigation Agency against him, pursuant to which the respondent is now facing trial. The respondent approached

¶169

23 -

¶170

2026:JHHC:11313-DB

¶171

the Special Court and the High Court for bail as many as six times between 2015 and 2019, seeking leniency on grounds of his limited role in the offence and claiming parity with other co-accused who had been enlarged on bail or acquitted but bail was declined to the respondent.

¶172

46. The respondent again approached the High Court in May 2019 for the third time, questioning the Special Court's order denying bail. The High Court through the impugned order [ K.A. Najeeb v. Union of India , Criminal Appeal No. 659 of 2019, order dated 23-7-2019 (Ker)], released the respondent on bail noting that the trial was yet to begin though the respondent had been in custody for four years.

¶173

47. The union of India assailed the aforesaid order granting bail before the Hon’ble Apex Court. The operation of the aforementioned bail order was, however, stayed [ Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb , 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1956] by the Hon’ble Apex Court, resultantly, the respondent has spent nearly five years and five months in judicial custody.

¶174

48. The respondent namely, K.A. Najeeb, had contended by taking the ground that still 276 witnesses were to be examined and therefore, the ground was taken that the time to be consumed in examining the 276 witnesses will cross the period of 8 years i.e. the sentence inflicted to the co-accused of the same case.

¶175

24 -

¶176

2026:JHHC:11313-DB

¶177

49. The Hon'ble Apex Court, on the aforesaid pretext, has called upon the UOI and by putting a question as to whether there is any chance of pruning the number of witnesses. The UOI has come out with the stand that based upon the nature of crime, it is quite impossible to reduce the number of witnesses.

¶178

50. The Hon'ble Apex Court then had considered the fact that since one of the co-accused has already been convicted for a period of 8 years, then the time which will be consumed in examining 276 witnesses will cross the period of 8 years and in that pretext the bail which was granted to respondent K.A. Najeeb has not been interfered with by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, for ready reference, the relevant paragraph of the said judgment is being referred herein :-

¶179

“ 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.”

¶180

51. Adverting to the factual aspect of the present case in order to assess as to whether in the facts of the present case,

¶181

25 -

¶182

2026:JHHC:11313-DB

¶183

the judgment rendered in the case of Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb [Supra] is at all applicable, this Court has found that:

¶184

(i) None of the co-accused persons has yet been convicted by the learned Special Court.

¶185

(ii) The maximum punishment as per the offence as inserted in the First Information Report also under the Act 1967 is the life imprisonment.

¶186

(iii) The number of witnesses although as per the chargesheet was 325 but the same has been pruned and came down to 127 witnesses by a conscious decision taken by the NIA.

¶187

(iv) Out of 127 witnesses, after pruning, 32 witnesses have already been examined.

¶188

52. This Court, therefore, is of the view that it is not a case where on fact the judgment rendered in the case of Union of

¶189

India vs. K.A. Najeeb [Supra] is applicable.

¶190

53. Law is well settled that there is no universal applicability of the judgment passed by any court having the binding precedence, rather, the applicability of the judgment is to be tested on the basis of the fact of the case, reference in this regard be made to the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dr. Subramanian Swamy v. State

¶191

of Tamil Nadu and Ors., (2014) 5 SCC 75, paragraph-47 of the said judgment is being reproduced hereinbelow:-

¶192

26 -

¶193

2026:JHHC:11313-DB

¶194

“47. It is a settled legal proposition that the ratio of any decision must be understood in the background of the facts of that case and the case is only an authority for what it actually decides, and not what logically follows from it. “The court should not place reliance on decisions without discussing as to how the factual situation fits in with the fact situation of the decision on which reliance is placed.”

¶195

54. 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 the rule of law, as has been observed in the case of Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb [Supra], is of the view that the present appeal deserves to be dismissed.

¶196

55. Accordingly, the instant appeal stands dismissed.

¶197

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)

¶198

(Sanjay Prasad, J.)

¶199

Dated : 17^th April, 2026 Birendra/ A.F.R.

¶200

Uploaded on 21.04.2026

¶201

27 -

Vikash Anand Ojha Alias Abhishek Alias Chhote Alias Chhotu v. Union of India through National Investigating Agency, New Delhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vikash Anand Ojha Alias Abhishek Alias Chhote Alias Chhotu v. Union of India through National Investigating Agency, New Delhi

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

Sanjeev Kumar Panday Vs Vibharani Pandey

Champa Kachhap Vs Chintamani Kumari

Anamika Mishra Vs Shandilya Aloke Kumar

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

Subhash Kumar Agrawal Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary Home Department, Govt. of Jharkhand

Villagers of Hariharpur, Circle Birni, Represented through Pappu Kumar Saw Vs the State of Jharkhand