2025:JHHC:32918-DB 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.643 of 2025 ----- Anand Paswan @ Anandi Paswan, son of Ram Ugrah Paswan, resident of village Kinjar, P.O. and P.S. Kinjar, District Arwal, Bihar. ----- Appellant Versus Union of India through National Investigating Agency represented by Superintendent of Police NIA, Ranchi, Jharkhand. ----- Respondent ------ CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH ------- For the Appellant : Mr. Balaji Srinivasan, Advocate For the NIA : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Spl.P.P Mr. Saurav Kumar, Advocate Mr. Manmohit Bhalla, Advocate ------- Per R. Mukhopadhyay, J. 03/30.10.2025 Heard Mr. Balaji Srinivasan, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned Special P.P (NIA). 2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 12.03.2025 passed in Misc. Criminal Application No. 199 of 2025 in connection with RC-05/2021/NIA/RNC arising out of Special NIA Case No.01/2022 by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-XVI cum Special Judge, NIA, Ranchi, whereby and whereunder the prayer for bail of the appellant has been rejected. 3. The prosecution case in brief is that the Central Government had received an information that some prominent cadres of Communist Party of India (Maoist), a proscribed terrorist Organisation, Pradyuman Sharma @ Saket @ Kundan @ Sudhanshu @ Kunal @ Nakul @ Laden along with Yogendra Ravidas @ Lighter, Nagendra Giri, Abhinav @ Gaurav @ Bittu, 2 Dhananjay Paswan [arms supplier to CPI (Maoist)] and others are conspiring to revive CPI (Maoist) in Magadh zone. It has been alleged that in furtherance to this sinister motive, they have conspired to raise funds for procurement of arms and ammunitions and imparting training of cadres of IED's fabrication and to liaise with incarcerated Naxals, OGW's in various jails for commission of terrorist activities. 4. Considering the gravity of the said offence and in exercise of the powers conferred under Sub-Section (5) of Section 6 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, CTCR Division vide Order F.No.11011/79/2021/NIA dated 27.12.2021 directed the National Investigation Agency to take-up investigation of the aforesaid case. In compliance to the said directive, NIA had registered the instant case as RC No.- 05/2021/NIA/RNC dated 30.12.2021 under Sections 16, 17, 18, 20, 38, 39 and 40 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. 5. It has been submitted by Mr. Balaji Srinivasan, learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant has been implicated on the basis of recovery of some incriminating articles from his residence and the 161 Cr.P.C statements of P.W.16 and P.W.28. It has been submitted that a country made pistol, a green bore rifle and a magazine were recovered from the house of the appellant and so far as the recovery of rifle is concerned, P.W.16 who is the bodyguard of the appellant, has accepted that the rifle recovered from the house of the appellant belongs to him. P.W.16, however, has stated that he was offered money by the appellant to admit that the pistol also belonged to him and he has further stated that the appellant used to work with the naxals and the people are scared of him. So far as the statement of P.W.28 is concerned, 3 he has stated that the appellant once had demanded levy from him. The appellant, according to Mr. Srinivasan, is a social activist and runs a dairy farm and because of such unsubstantiated allegations, he is in custody since 23.06.2023. The appellant was not arrayed as an accused either in the charge sheet or in the first supplementary charge sheet but his name figures as an accused in the second supplementary charge sheet. Out of 200 cited witnesses, the prosecution has examined only 28 witnesses and even if the number of witnesses is curtailed, the trial will take an indefinite time to conclude. 5. Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned Spl.P.P (NIA) has submitted that there are incriminating evidences on record which would reveal about the manner of the involvement of the appellant in terrorist activities. The appellant is a habitual offender and is wanted in 7 criminal cases. After pruning the number of witnesses, the same has come down to 97, out of which 35 have already been examined. All steps are being taken by the prosecution to conclude the trial at the earliest. It has been submitted that the prayer for bail of one of the co- accused has already been rejected by this Court. 6. Mr. Srinivasan, in reply, has submitted that out of 7 criminal antecedents as mentioned by the NIA, in 2 cases the appellant has been acquitted and in 4 cases he is on bail while in one case he has not even been remanded. It has also been submitted that the case of the appellant is on a much better footing than that of co-accused Tarun Kumar whose prayer for bail has been rejected. 7. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective sides and have also perused the affidavits filed on behalf of them. 4 8. The name of the appellant did not figure in the charge sheet or in the first supplementary charge sheet but subsequently in the second supplementary charge sheet he has been arrayed as A-5. The role and activities of the appellant have been depicted in the following manner:- “17.10.1: Role and offences surfaced against accused Anand Paswan @ Anandi Paswan (A-5): On 12.02.2022, searches at twenty-six locations were carried out by NIA in four different states, including the house of accused A-5. During the said search, one country made pistol (Desi Katta) having barrel appx. 11 CM, body appx 7.0 CM, BUTT APPX. 7.5 cm along with 14 rounds bearing mark KF 8 mm, kept in green polythene was recovered and seized from the house of accused Anand Paswan (A-5). Further, accused A-5 has also a criminal antecedent of seven criminal cases at different police stations of districts Patna and Arwal of Bihar State. A-5 was an ex-cadre of CPI(Maoist) and presently supporting the said CPI(Maoist) organization, which is prescribed in India. Thereby, A-5 has committed offences U/Ss.120B of IPC, Section 39 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967 and Section 25(1B)(a) of Arms Act.” 9. It would, therefore, appear that a country-made pistol along with 14 rounds were recovered. So far as Tarun Kumar is concerned, his role is depicted in the charge sheet at paragraph 17.14.01 and from which it appears that the said accused was directly involved in collection of levy and he was working as a conduit between the operatives of CPI (Maoist) and other stakeholders of Magadh zone in the state of Jharkhand and Bihar. 10. On the question of grant of bail on consideration of the period of incarceration as well as the delayed trial, we may refer to the case of Union of India versus K.A. Najeeb reported in (2021) 3 SCR 443 wherein it has been held as follows:- 5 “17. It is thus clear to us that the presence of statutory restrictions like Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA per se does not oust the ability of the constitutional courts to grant bail on grounds of violation of Part III of the Constitution. Indeed, both the restrictions under a statute as well as the powers exercisable under constitutional jurisdiction can be well harmonised. Whereas at commencement of proceedings, the courts are expected to appreciate the legislative policy against grant of bail but the rigours of such provisions will melt down where there is no likelihood of trial being completed within a reasonable time and the period of incarceration already undergone has exceeded a substantial part of the prescribed sentence. Such an approach would safeguard against the possibility of provisions like Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA being used as the sole metric for denial of bail or for wholesale breach of constitutional right to speedy trial. 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. 19. Yet another reason which persuades us to enlarge the respondent on bail is that Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA is comparatively less stringent than Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Unlike the NDPS Act where the competent court needs to be satisfied that prima facie the accused is not guilty and that he is unlikely to commit another offence while on bail; there is no such precondition under UAPA. Instead, Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA merely provides another possible ground for the competent court to refuse bail, in addition to the well- settled considerations like gravity of the offence, possibility of tampering with evidence, influencing the 6 witnesses or chance of the accused evading the trial by absconsion, etc.” 11. The appellant is in custody for more than 2 years and 4 months and despite pruning of the witnesses, there does not appear to be any chance of the trial being concluded in the near future. Such facts, apart from the nature of allegations levelled against the appellant, would entitle the appellant to grant of bail. Accordingly, we hereby set aside the order dated 12.03.2025 passed in Misc. Criminal Application No. 199 of 2025 in connection with RC-05/2021/NIA/RNC arising out of Special NIA Case No.01/2022 by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-XVI cum Special Judge, NIA, Ranchi and direct that the appellant be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-XVI cum Special Judge, NIA, Ranchi in connection with RC-05/2021/NIA/RNC subject to the condition that the appellant shall remain physically present before the learned trial court on each and every date till the conclusion of the trial. 12. This appeal is allowed. 13. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, stand(s) closed. (Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.) (Ambuj Nath, J.) Dated: 30.10.2025 Shamim/-