Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:JHHC:26728-DB ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 744 of 2026 Radheshyam Badaik, S/o Late Durga Badaik, R/o Upper Tola, Baruhatu, P.O.- Baruhatu, P.S.- Bundu, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand ... ... Appellant Versus Union of India through National Investigation Agency ... ... Respondent ……….. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI ……….. For the Appellant : Mr. Prashant Kr. Srivastava, Adv. For the Respondent-NIA : Mr. Amit Kr. Das, Sr. Adv. (NIA) Mr. Saurav Kumar, Adv. ……….. Order No. 09/ Dated, 29th August, 2026 Per Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. Heard Mr. Prashant Kr. Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent-NIA. 2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 21.04.2026 passed by Shri Abhimanyu Kumar, learned Exclusive Special Judge for NIA Cases, Ranchi in Misc. Cr. Application No. 633 of 2026, corresponding to Special (NIA) Case No. 01 of 2017, arising out of RC- 11/2017/NIA/DLI & Bundu P.S. Case No. 65 of 2008, whereby and whereunder, the prayer for bail of the appellant has been rejected. 3. The prosecution case in brief is that on 09.07.2018, Ramesh Singh Munda, the then MLA, along with the informant, his bodyguard and house guard had left his house in a Tavera car to reach S.S. High School Bundu. They reached the school at 12:15 hours. When the programme was to be concluded the informant saw three naxalites carrying weapons in their hands standing ten foot away on the road side of the car who all of a sudden started firing upon the bodyguard Shivnath Minz and house guard p. 2 Khursheed Alam who were standing in the corridor resulting in their death. The informant hid himself in the Tavera car. It has been alleged that the extremists had remained for 3-5 minutes and subsequently, they fled away. It has been stated further that Ramesh Singh Munda was seen lying inside the hall in a corner with multiple bullet injuries. In the meantime, the Bundu police had arrived and taken all the four injured persons to RIMS Ranchi, where doctors declared them dead. Based on the aforesaid allegations, Bundu P.S. Case No. 65 of 2008 was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 379, 302/34 of the I.P.C., and Section 27 of the Arms Act as well as Section 17 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act against unknown persons. On conclusion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the accused persons while showing investigation pending against Kundan Pahan and other unknown accused persons. The case was subsequently referred to C.I.D., Jharkhand who had filed another charge- sheet and investigation continued. So far as some of the accused persons are concerned, subsequently, the CID had filed another charge-sheet against Kundan Pahan showing him as an absconder and Radhe Shyam Baraik and Ram Mohan Singh Munda @ Mochu @ Bhagat @ Pragati @ Ram Mohan. On the direction of the Additional D.G.P. Crime Investigation Department, Ranchi, Jharkhand Section 18, 20 & 38 of Unlawful Activities Prohibition Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘UAP Act’ for the sake of brevity) were added and by exercising the powers conferred under Section 6(5) read with Section 8 of N.I.A. Act, vide order F.No.11011/24/2017-IS.IV dated 28.06.2017, the NIA was directed to take over the investigation. Consequent thereto, p. 3 the First Information Report was re-registered as RC case no. 11/2017/NIA/DLI dated 30.06.2017. The NIA had submitted a supplementary charge-sheet against the accused-appellant as well as the other accused persons. 4. It has been submitted by Mr. Prashant Kr. Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant, that the appellant has been implicated only on the basis of suspicion. The conspiracy theory was hatched in Birbanki Kurumbada forest area which was attended by several accused persons but the appellant was not present in the said meeting which would rule out the appellant as one of the conspirators in the murder of Ramesh Singh Munda. The appellant was not even present at the place of occurrence. It has been submitted that the appellant being a villager could not have resisted the extremists in utilizing his house for fooding and shelter. The appellant is in custody since 18.07.2017 and the trial is being prolonged despite it being at the stage of argument. 5. Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent-N.I.A. has submitted that the statements of several accused persons who had turned approver u/s 164 Cr.P.C. had disclosed the role of the appellant of being closely associated with the principal conspirator in facilitating subversive activities. The house of the appellant was used as a meeting point of the extremists who also provided food, shelter and other logistical support. Mr. Das, has submitted that on the date of occurrence it was the appellant who had arranged for transportation of the assailants to the place of occurrence and the same vehicle was used for their escapade after executing their sinister plan. The prayer for bail of some of the co-accused have been rejected in Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. p. 4 421 of 2024 and Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 1375 of 2023. Mr. Das, learned Senior Counsel has submitted that the period of custody undergone by the appellant would not be a determining factor considering the gravity of offence and the fact that the trial is at the stage of argument. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have also perused the affidavits on record. 7. The appellant has been arrayed as A-9 in the 3rd Supplementary Charge Sheet and the role played by the appellant has been depicted in para 17.28 of the said charge-sheet which reads as under: 17.28 Role of / additional offences established against Radhe Shyam Badaik (A-9): It is established that A-9 used to harbour the CPI (Maoists) in his house at Baruhatu and several CIP (Maoist) operatives including A-7, A-10, A-12, A-13, A-14 stayed in his house at Baruhatu till the commission of crime. He on being asked by A-3 and A-6, also brought the Jeep from Bundu bus stand to Baruhatu for use in commission of crime. Hence, as per averments made in the earlier paragraphs, it is established that A-9 by becoming member of terrorist gang, conspired with co-accused members of the terrorist gang and knowingly and voluntarily harboured the members of the terrorist gang and thereby criminally conspired with co-accused persons for causing murder of Ramesh Singh Munda and three others. He therefore committed offences under sections 120B read with 302 of IPC, sections 18, 19 & 20 of UA (P) Act. 8. It has come in course of investigation that the appellant was well acquainted with Kundan Pahan (A- 7) who was involved in committing the murder of several p. 5 Police personnel and it was the present appellant who had facilitated the transport for carrying some of the extremists to the place of occurrence who ultimately committed the murder of Ramesh Singh Munda. That apart the appellant had also harbored extremists and had provided logistical support to them. 9. Mr. Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that some of the co-accused have been granted bail and, in the context, reference has been made to the order dated 13.12.2023 passed in Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 1895 of 2023 and the order dated 20.06.2024 passed in Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 203 of 2024. However, on a perusal of the said orders it would transpire that the appellants in those cases were primarily attributed of having conspired with the other accused persons in eliminating the sitting MLA. In the present appeal apart from the conspiracy alleged against the appellant his involvement in the activities of the terrorist organization in a more direct manner as has come in course of investigation distinguishes his case from those co-accused who have been granted bail. Apart from this the prayer for bail of some of the co-accused have been rejected in Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 421 of 2024 and Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 1375 of 2023. The trial is at the stage of argument and, therefore, on consideration of the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to interfere in the impugned order dated 21.04.2026 passed by Shri Abhimanyu Kumar, learned Exclusive Special Judge for NIA Cases, Ranchi in Misc. Cr. Application No. 633 of 2026, corresponding to Special (NIA) Case No. 01 of 2017, arising out of RC-11/2017/NIA/DLI & Bundu P.S. Case No. 65 of 2008 and, consequently we dismiss this appeal. Page 6 of 6 10. Pending I.A(s), if any, stands closed. (Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.) (Arun Kumar Rai, J.) Dated, the 29th August, 2026. A. Sanga/NAFR Uploaded on 07 / 09 /2026