2025:JHHC:30462-DB Page 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal(DB)No.922 of 2025 ----- Ravi Bhuiyan @ Rohit Jee @ Nattu Bharti @ Santosh Bhuiyn @ Nattu Bhuiyan @ Rohit @ Nattu @ Santosh Bhuiyan, Aged about 40 years, Son of Jagsu Bhuiyan, Resident of Village Badhar, P.O. and P.S. Kunda, District- Chatra … … … Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand … … … Respondent ------- CORAM:HON’BLEMR. JUSTICESUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON’BLEMR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI ------- For the Appellant :Mr.Anupam Anand, Advocate :Mr. Pranav Kumar, Advocate For the State :Ms.Kumari Rashmi, A.P.P. ------ Order No.05/Dated26th September, 2025 1. The appeal is preferred under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Act, 2008, directed against the order dated 16.06.2025, passed in M.C.A. No. 1009/2025 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Chatra, whereby the prayer for regular bail of the appellant was rejected in connection with S.T. Case No. 236/2022, arising out of Kunda P.S. Case No. 11 of 2022, for the offences under Sections 25(1-B)a, 25(1-AA), 26, and 35 of the Arms Act, under Sections 3, 4, and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, and under Section 17(1)(2) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the appellant is in custody since 25.03.2022 and still the five witnesses yet to be examined, since, out of 12 witnesses only 7 witnesses have been examined. 3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer to interfere with the impugned order, taking the ground that the prayer for regular bail of the appellant was rejected vide order dated 20.12.2023 passed in 2025:JHHC:30462-DB Page 2 Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1122 of 2022. It has been contended that the nature of the allegations against the appellant is serious, as there was recovery of one country-made carbine loaded with four live cartridges, along with several jelatins etc.from the possession of the appellant. Additionally, the appellant has been found to be an active member of the banned extremist organization TSPC, and the trial is going onand only five witnesses yet to be examined. Hence, under such circumstances, the order passed by the learned court rejecting the prayer for regular bail of the appellant may not be interfered with. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 5. We have found from the allegations said to have been made against the appellant, as per the reference made in the First Information Report, and the grounds taken by this Court while rejecting the prayer for regular bail of the appellant on an earlier occasion vide order dated 20.12.2023 passed in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1122 of 2022, that the appellant is an active member of the banned extremist organization TSPC and was found red-handed in possession of a country-made carbine loaded with four live cartridges. 6. The learned court has also taken into consideration the issue of the appellant’s criminal antecedents, with reference made to seven criminal antecedents of a similar nature. 7. This Court, although conscious that bail is to be granted on the ground of long incarceration, simultaneously maintains the balance between the principle that bail is the rule and the need to maintain law and order in society. 8. The reference of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Gurwinder Singh Vs State of Punjab and Another reported in2024SCC OnLine SC 109, wherein, the law has been laid 2025:JHHC:30462-DB Page 3 down that even in the matter of U.A.(P) Act, in order to maintain the balance since the U.A.(P) matters relate to the issue of national security, merely on the ground of long incarceration, the bail is not to be granted, the relevant paragraph of the said judgment is being referred as under:- 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 4 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. 9. The recovery of the one country made carbine loaded with four live cartridges, as well as the fact that the appellant has seven criminal antecedents, has been taken as a reason not to interfere with the impugned order. Further, it is noted that out of 12 witnesses, 5 remain to be examined. 10. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that sincere endeavourhas been taken to conclude the trial within the reasonable period by securing the presence of the witnesses who are yet to be examined. 11. Accordingly, the instant Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 922 of 2025 is dismissed and as such disposed of. (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) (Arun Kumar Rai, J.) 26th September, 2025 Umesh/Abhishek