2026:JHHC:24312-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 133 of 2026 ------ Ramashish Yadav @ Chalitar Yadav @ Angad Jee @ Charitar Yadav @ Suraj Yadav, aged about 31 years, Son of Bhuneshwar Yadav Resident of Vill-Kendua, P.O. and P.S. Gidhour, District- Chatra. … 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. Rajesh Kumar Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Panjak Kumar, P.P. ------ 07/Dated: 13th August, 2026 1. The instant appeal filed under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, is directed against the order dated 21.07.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Chatra in Misc. Criminal Application No. 1350/2025, by which the prayer for regular bail of the appellant in connection with Hunter Ganj P.S. Case no. 180 of 2022 registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 353, 414, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 25(1-A), 26, 35 and 27 of the Arms Act, Section 3, 4, 5 of Explosive Substance Act, Section 10, 13,16, 18, 20, 38 and 39 of Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, and Section 17 of Criminal Law Amendment Act has been rejected. Submission made by the learned Counsel for the appellant: 2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has drawn attention to the fact that the prayer for bail of the present appellant stood 2026:JHHC:24312-DB rejected earlier by this Court vide order dated 16.01.2024 passed in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 851 of 2023. 3. It is urged that although charges came to be framed on 03.06.2024, only four witnesses out of a total of nine prosecution witnesses have been examined till date, thereby demonstrating tardy progress in the trial. 4. It has further been contended that the appellant has been languishing in judicial custody since 04.03.2023 in a case where there has been no substantial advancement in the trial for over two years. 5. On the aforesaid premise, it is the emphatic contention of learned counsel that the appellant deserves to be enlarged on bail, and accordingly prays that the instant appeal be allowed. Submission made by the learned Public Prosecutor for the State: 6. Mr. Pankaj Kumar, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State, has submitted that a counter-affidavit has been duly filed, wherein objection has been raised on the ground that the appellant is burdened with as many as ten pending criminal antecedents. It is further highlighted therein that apart from his alleged involvement in the present crime, the antecedents themselves constitute a serious impediment to the grant of bail. 7. It has been contended by the prosecution that the appellant’s prayer for bail stood rejected on merits by this Court vide order dated 2026:JHHC:24312-DB 16.01.2024. In that view, it is urged that no fresh case on merits has been made out, and the impugned order declining bail ought not to be interfered with merely on the ground of a probable delay in conclusion of the trial. Analysis 8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and has gone through the impugned order. 9. This Court has carefully perused the allegations set forth in the First Information Report (FIR) as well as the previous order passed in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 851 of 2023. It is noted that, at the time of the earlier adjudication, considering the gravity of the offence alleged and the fact that investigation was then in progress, the prayer for regular bail was rejected. 10. The present application is in the nature of a second attempt, the principal ground urged being the alleged lack of progress in the trial. It is thus contended that prolonged incarceration without effective advancement of proceedings warrants reconsideration of the appellant’s prayer for bail. 11. This Court, while entertaining the present matter on 14.05.2026, was pleased to call for a status report of the trial and directed the State to place on record its affidavit in objection, if any. 12. Pursuant to the directions issued, the counter-affidavit has been filed by the State, and the status report of the trial has also been received. Both documents are now available on record for 2026:JHHC:24312-DB consideration of this Court. 13. The State has raised objections, submitting that the present appellant is burdened with as many as ten pending criminal cases. It is further urged that the appellant’s earlier prayer for bail has already been considered and rejected on merits, and therefore, no fresh ground has arisen warranting reconsideration of the matter. 14. While the fact regarding ten pending criminal cases against the appellant is not in dispute, the pivotal question that arises is whether the appellant can be indefinitely denied the privilege of bail solely on the ground of such antecedents. As per the status report placed on record, it is evident that out of nine charge-sheeted witnesses, only four have been examined since the framing of charges on 03.06.2024, thereby reflecting snail pace progress in the trial. 15. It further appears from the record that although summons were issued to the charge-sheeted witnesses on 11.06.2024, five witnesses are yet to be examined. This circumstance underscores the slow pace of the proceedings, notwithstanding the lapse of considerable time since the framing of charges. 16. The core issue in the present case squarely implicates Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Even where the nature of the alleged crime is grave, a duty is cast upon the prosecuting agency to establish the truth through an expeditious trial. The constitutional mandate of securing personal liberty under Article 21 must be harmonized with 2026:JHHC:24312-DB the societal interest in maintaining public order and tranquility, thereby ensuring that prolonged incarceration does not transgress the bounds of fairness and due process. 17. A perusal of the status report, which was called for by this Court vide order dated 14.05.2026, reveals that the case presently stands at the stage of prosecution evidence. The charges were framed on 03.06.2024 and summons were thereafter issued on 11.06.2024. Out of nine charge-sheeted witnesses, only four have been examined thus far, while the remaining five witnesses are yet to be examined. 18. In the instant case, it is indeed surprising that despite charges having been framed on 03.06.2024, five prosecution witnesses still remain unexamined. This protracted delay in recording evidence, notwithstanding the issuance of summons, reflects a lack of expeditious progress in the trial. 19. In the instant case, it is indeed surprising that despite charges having been framed on 03.06.2024, five prosecution witnesses still remain unexamined. This protracted delay in recording evidence, notwithstanding the issuance of summons, manifests a lack of expeditious progress in the trial and raises concern as to whether the constitutional guarantee of a speedy trial under Article 21 is being meaningfully observed. 20. The aforesaid admitted delay clearly reflects a lethargic approach and a lack of due diligence in the conduct of the proceedings by the prosecution. Such indolence in securing the attendance and 2026:JHHC:24312-DB examination of witnesses not only undermines the expeditious disposal of the trial but also impinges upon the constitutional guarantee of a speedy trial enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Further, it is not in dispute that the appellant has been languishing in custody since 04.03.2023, which now spans over three and a half years, thereby accentuating the prejudice occasioned by the delay. 21. As regards the objection concerning ten pending criminal cases against the appellant, as raised in the counter-affidavit, it is well settled that the existence of criminal antecedents alone cannot justify indefinite incarceration when the prosecuting agency itself fails to secure the attendance of witnesses and ensure early disposal of the trial. The balance between safeguarding public interest and upholding the constitutional guarantee of liberty under Article 21 must be maintained, and mere pendency of cases cannot be treated as an absolute bar to the grant of bail in the face of prosecutorial delay. 22. It needs to refer herein that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ayub Khan v. State of Rajasthan, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3763 that the criminal antecedents may not be a reason to deny bail to the accused in case of long incarceration. It has been observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court that the presence of the antecedents of the accused is only one of the several considerations for deciding the prayer for bail made by him and in a given case, if the accused makes 2026:JHHC:24312-DB out a strong prima facie case, depending upon the fact situation and period of incarceration, the presence of antecedents may not be a ground to deny bail. 23. At this juncture it needs to refer herein the settled proposition of law that long incarceration and the delay in the conclusion of the trial will entitle the accused to bail, reference in this regard be made to the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Athar Parwez v. Union of India, (2024) 20 SCC 57. The relevant paragraph is being quoted as under: “19. Long incarceration and the unlikely likelihood of the trial being completed in the near future have also been taken as a ground for exercising its constitutional role by the constitutional courts to grant bail on violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees trial be concluded within a reasonable time. Gross delay in con- clusion of the trial would justify such invocation, leading to a conclusion of violation of Part III of the Constitution of India, which may be taken as a ground to release an un- dertrial on bail. ***** 21. At the initial stage, the legislative policy needs to be appreciated and followed by the courts. Keeping the statutory provisions in mind, but with the passage of time, the effect of that statutory provision would, in fact, have to be diluted, giving way to the mandate of Part III of the Constitution, where the accused, as of now, is not a convict and is facing the charges. Constitutional right of speedy trial in such circumstances will have precedence over the bar/strict provisions of the statute and cannot be made the sole reason for denial of bail. Therefore, the period of incarceration of an accused could also be a relevant factor to be considered by the constitutional courts, not to be merely governed by the statutory provisions.” 24. In Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb (2021) 3 SCC 713 , the Hon’ble 2026:JHHC:24312-DB Apex 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. 25. Taking into consideration the aforesaid ratio rendered in the case of K.A. Najeeb (supra) the Hon’ble Apex Court in Jagjeet Singh v. Ashish Mishra, (2022) 9 SCC 321 has observed that no accused can be subjected to unending detention pending trial. The relevant paragraph is being quoted as under: "40. Having held so, we cannot be oblivious to what has been urged on behalf of the respondent-accused that cancellation of bail by this Court is likely to be construed as an indefinite foreclosure of his right to seek bail. It is not necessary to dwell upon the wealth of case law which, regardless of the stringent provisions in a penal law or the gravity of the offence, has time and again recognised the legitimacy of seeking liberty from incarceration. To put it differently, no accused can be subjected to unending detention pending trial, especially when the law presumes him to be innocent until proven guilty. Even where statutory provisions expressly bar the grant of bail, such as in cases under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, this Court has expressly ruled that after a reasonably long period of incarceration, or for any other valid reason, such stringent provisions will melt down, and cannot be measured over and above the right of liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution (see Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb [Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb, (2021) 3 SCC 713, paras 15 and 17] )." 26. This Court, in the backdrop of the aforesaid factual matrix and the 2026:JHHC:24312-DB settled proposition of law as discussed and referred hereinabove, particularly the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb (supra) is of the considered view that the present appeal merits acceptance. 27. Accordingly, the order dated 21.07.2025 passed in Misc. Criminal Application No. 1350/2025 in connection with Hunter Ganj P.S. Case no. 180 of 2022, is hereby quashed and set aside. 28. In view thereof, the instant appeal stands allowed. 29. In consequence thereof, the appellant, above named, is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Chatra in connection with Hunter Ganj P.S. Case no. 180 of 2022, subject to the condition that the appellant will co-operate in the trial and shall appear on each and every date before the learned trial court, failing which, the learned trial court is at liberty to cancel the bail bond forthwith; further subject to the condition that one of the bailors should be the father of the appellant and in case of his father being no more, a close relative of the appellant, which is to be accompanied by affidavit justifying that such bailor is close relative of the appellant. 30. 30. This direction is being issued with a view to obviate any hindrance in the conduct of the trial and to ensure its expeditious disposal, in consonance with the constitutional mandate under Article 21 of the 2026:JHHC:24312-DB Constitution of India. 31. Accordingly, the instant appeal stands disposed of. 32. Pending I.A(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) 13th August, 2026 Samarth Uploaded on 14.08.2026