2026:JHHC:5228-DB 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (DB) No.100 of 2026 ------ Md. Mahmud Alam @ Mahmud @ Nepali, aged about 35 years, son of Md. Siddque, resident of Rai Bazar, P.O: & P.S: Khelari, District: Ranchi. …. …. Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand ..... .... Respondent CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ------ For the Appellant : Mr. Rohit, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Shiv Shankar Kumar, A.P.P. ------ 02/Dated: 20.02.2026 1. The instant appeal preferred under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, is directed against the order dated 17.12.2025 passed in Misc. Cri. Application No.2521 of 2025 (ATS Court Case-01/2024) by the learned Addl. Judicial Commissioner- XVIII-cum-Special Judge CID/ATS, Ranchi, in connection with ATS P.S. Case No. 10 of 2023, registered for the offence under Sections 385/386/34 of the IPC and Sections 16/17/20/21 of the U.A.(P) Act, whereby and whereunder, the prayer for regular bail of the appellant has been rejected. 2. The prosecution version as per the brief as has been referred in the impugned order that on 20.07.2023 at about 15:00 hours, the Superintendent of Police, ATS, Jharkhand, Ranchi had received a secret information that the criminals of Aman Srivastava gang had extorted a huge amount of extortion money from coal businessmen and contractors by threatening to kil. them and they are coming to Ranchi through Bhurkunda-Patratu Road. A raiding 2026:JHHC:5228-DB 2 team was formed on this information and reached the Ranchi- Patratu Ring Road and checked vehicles coming from the Patratu side. Meanwhile, a white color Scorpio vehicle was coming at a very high speed from Patratu-Pithoria side which was stopped by the raiding team and two persons traveling in the vehicle got very scared after seeing the police party and on being asked, they told their name as Ezaj Ansari and Minku Khan and it was stated that they are working for Aman Srivastava gang and has already been sent to jail in different cases related to Aman Srivastava Gang. On search, two mobile phones were recovered from the possession of the Ezaj Ansari and Minku Khan, apart from that a white colored bag containing a total cash amount of Rs. 49,83,000/- was recovered from beneath the rear seat of the said vehicle. On enquiry the accused persons have stated that the said amount was handed over to them by Surendra Bhuiyan, an associate of Ravi Sardar, and the money has to hand over to Jahir Ansari, Firoz Khan and Mahmud Alam @ Nepali near Alam Hospital, and the said money was collected as rangdari by Aman Srivastava gang from different traders. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that merely because an amount of Rs.49,83,000/- has been recovered from the possession of the Ezaj Ansari and Minku Khan and the said money has to hand over to Mahmud Alam @ Nepali, appellant herein, near Alam Hospital, cannot be said to be complicity of the present appellant, unless the said amount is said to be involved in 2026:JHHC:5228-DB 3 the proceeds of criminal activities. 4. Learned A.P.P. for the respondent-State has vehemently opposed the prayer to interfere with the impugned order dated 17.12.2025. 5. It has been contended that on earlier occasion the prayer for bail of the present appellant has been rejected by this Court vide order dated 04.04.2025 passed in Cr. Appeal (DB) No.940 of 2024. 6. It has been submitted that the prayer for bail of other two co- accused persons have also been rejected, vide order dated 04.04.2025 passed in Cr. Appeal (DB) Nos.941 and 942 of 2024 respectively and on the basis of their confession, the said amount has been recovered from the vehicle. 7. It has further been submitted as per the instruction that out of nine witnesses, seven witnesses have already been examined, as such, in the aforesaid backdrop, it is not a fit case to interfere with the impugned order dated 17.12.2025. 8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone across the finding so recorded by the learned trial Court in the impugned order. 9. On earlier occasion, the prayer for bail of the present appellant has been rejected by this Court vide order dated 04.04.2025 passed in Cr. Appeal (DB) No.940 of 2024. The copy of the said order has not been appended with the memo of appeal. However, the reference of the said case has been made at paragraph-2 of the memo of appeal. 10. The amount, as has been recovered from the possession of 2026:JHHC:5228-DB 4 the present appellant had been surfaced on the basis of the confessional statement of co-accused, namely, Ezaj Ansari and Minku Khan whose bail application has been declined to be interfered with by this Court, vide order dated 04.04.2025 passed in Cr. Appeal (DB) Nos.941 and 942 of 2024 respectively and on the basis of their confession, the said amount has been recovered from the vehicle. 11. Since, the bail of the other co-accused persons has already been rejected and moreover, out of nine witnesses, seven witnesses have already been examined and as such, this Court is of the view that the order impugned requires no interference. 12. Accordingly, the instant appeal fails and is, dismissed. 13. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, stands disposed of. 14. It is made clear that any observation made herein will not prejudice the case of the appellant in course of trial and view as expressed by this Court is only limited to the instant appeal. (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava J.) 20.02.2026 Rohit/-