2026:JHHC:2958-DB

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

Cr. Appeal (DB) No.1271 of 2025

------

Fuleshwar Gope, aged about 32 years, S/o Late Shankar Gope R/o

Village Chhotka Regre, P.O-Lapa, P.S. Jariyagarh, District-Khunti,

Jharkhand …. …. Appellant

Versus

Union of India, through National Investigating Agency, Represented by

Superintendent of Police N.I.A. having its office at N.I.A. Camp office,

Quarter No.305, Sector-II, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi,

Jharkhand-834002.

.... .... Respondent

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

------

For the Appellant : Mr. Balaji Srinivasan, Advocate

Mr. Niranjan Kumar, Advocate

For the NIA : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate

Mr. Saurav Kumar, Advocate

------

C.A.V. on 15.01.2026 Pronounced on 04/02/2026

Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.

PRAYER

1. The instant appeal preferred under Section 21(4) of the National

Investigation Agency Act, 2008 is directed against the impugned

judgment and order dated 18.08.2025 passed by the learned Special

Judge, NIA at Ranchi, in Miscellaneous Cr. Application No.1476 of 2025

[Special (NIA) Case No.02 of 2018 ] corresponding to R.C.

No.02/2018/NIA/DLI, arising out of Bero P.S. Case No.67 of 2016

registered for the offence under Sections 212, 213, 414/34 of the I.P.C.,

Section 17 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act and Sections 13, 17 & 40

of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, whereby and whereunder, the

prayer for regular bail of the appellant has been rejected.

2026:JHHC:2958-DB

2

PROSECUTION CASE & FACTS

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case leading to this Criminal

Appeal is that on 10.11.2016, a secret information was received by

Bindeshwari Das S.I. of Bero P.S. that Dinesh Gope, Supremo of PLFI, a

proscribed unlawful organization, was trying to deposit the ill-gotten

funds, collected through extortion/levy for further channelizing into white

money through his associates and being brought up by his associates in

a Safari car bearing registration number JH01V-2898 for depositing in

SBI Bero Branch.

3. Thereafter, a team was constituted under the leadership of Inspector

of Police Tetru Oraon of Bero circle and thereafter, the police team

including Bindeshwari Das, S.I. of Bero P.S. reached at SBI, Bero Branch

and covered the inner/outer vicinity of the said Branch and surveillance

on the suspects was initiated. Meanwhile, seeing the police party, three-

four persons tried to escape from the SBI Branch who were apprehended

by the police team. They disclosed their names as (i) Vinod Kumar (A-1),

(ii) Chandrashekhar Kumar (A-2), (iii) Nand Kishore Mahto (A-3) and (iv)

Mohan Kumar @ Rajesh Kumar (A-4). It is alleged that on the personal

search of apprehended persons, cash of Rs.16 lacs were recovered from

Vinod Kumar (A-1), cash of Rs.38000 was recovered from

Chandrashekhar Kumar (A-2) and cash of Rs.09 lacs were recovered

from Nand Kishore Mahto (A-3). All currency notes (total Rs.25,38,000/-)

were of Rs.1,000/- denominations. The apprehended persons did not

produce any relevant document regarding recovered huge cash amount.

2026:JHHC:2958-DB

3

They admitted that the recovered amount is extorted/ black money

derived in the form of levy by the PLFI and they were trying to deposit the

same in the account of Petrol Pump to convert the same as legal money.

Thereafter, a case was registered at Bero P.S. bearing Bero P.S. Case

No. 67/2016 under Sections 212, 213 & 414 read with Section 34 of the

IPC, Sections 13, 17 & 40 of the UA(P) Act and Section 17 of the CLA Act

against the said four apprehended accused persons.

4. Thereafter, Govt. of India, MHA (CTCR Division) vide order No.

11011/51/2017/IS-IV dated 16.01.2018 directed the National Investigation

Agency, Ranchi to take over the case of Bero P.S. No.67/2018 and

thereafter, the NIA re-registered case no. RC-02/2018/NIA/DLI dated

19.01.2018 and submitted 1st, 2nd & 3rd supplementary charge-sheets

against 19 accused persons including the present appellant, namely,

Fuleshwar Gope (A-17).

5. After obtaining the administrative approval of the competent authority

the case docket and case exhibits were transferred to the NIA by the

Investigating agency and accordingly investigation was taken up by the

NIA.

6. During the course of further investigation it surfaced that the

absconding accused Dinesh Gope (A-6), supremo of PLFI, continued to

channelize levy amount into legitimate means by depositing/transferring

into the bank accounts of his wives(A-13) and A-14 and associates by

using several Pragya Kendra operative through various banking channels

and also in the bank accounts of Companies opened in the name of his

2026:JHHC:2958-DB

4

wives(A-13), A-14, Sumant Kumar (A-7) and the present appellant

(Fuleshwar Gope) and accordingly, present appellant was arrested on

13.07.2020.

7. Accordingly, on 23.7.2020, 2nd supplementary charge-sheet was

submitted against the other accused persons including the present

appellant and he was arrayed as an Accused no.17 (A-17).

8. Consequently, the above-named appellant had preferred the regular

bail application vide Misc. Cr. Application No. 566 of 2022 before the NIA

Special Court, Ranchi for regular bail but the same has been rejected

vide order dated 19.05.2022, against which, an appeal being Cr. Appeal

(DB) No.767 of 2022 has been preferred before this Court but vide order

dated 21.03.2024 the same has also been rejected.

9. The present appellant against the said order dated 21.03.2024 has

preferred Special Leave Petition being SLP No. 7703 of 2024 before the

Hon’ble Apex Court but vide order dated 03.02.2025 the said petition has

also been dismissed.

10. Consequently, the above-named appellant had again preferred the

regular bail application vide Misc. Cr. Application No. 1476 of 2025 before

the NIA Special Court, Ranchi but the same has been rejected vide order

dated 18.08.2025, against which, the present appeal has been filed.

Submission advanced on behalf of the learned counsel for the

Appellant:

11. Learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the impugned order

on the following grounds: -

2026:JHHC:2958-DB

5

(i) The appellant has falsely been implicated in the instant case

without any valid evidence.

(ii) It has been contended that the appellant is a poor farmer and

was working as Munshi for contractors on daily wages.

(iv) The appellant is languishing in judicial custody since

13.07.2020. He is in custody for about 5 years and 6 months. He

has completed his sentence for the offence under Section 17(1)(2)

of the CLA and there is no likelihood of trial to be concluded in near

future.

(v) It has further been contended that no case of criminal conspiracy

made out as there is no meeting of minds or intention with co-

accused to commit any terrorist activities or channelizing terror fund.

(vi) It has also been contended that the prosecution has already

closed its evidence after examining 125 witnesses out of 152

witnesses.

(vii) It has been submitted that the constitutional rights given under

Article 21 will prevail over the statutory embargo provided under

section 43(d)(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.

(viii) The order passed by this Court to conclude the trial within one

year has not been complied with. Now, the case is at the stage of

Section 313 Cr.P.C.

(ix) The ground of parity has also been taken that fourteen accused

persons have already been granted bail, who have similar set of

2026:JHHC:2958-DB

6

allegations of channelizing extortion money/ill gotten money of A-6-

Dinesh Gope.

12. Learned counsel for the appellant, on the aforesaid premise, has

submitted that the learned court ought to have considered these aspects

of the matter, while considering the prayer for regular bail, but having not

been considered, therefore, the impugned orders need to be interfered

with.

Submission advanced on behalf of the learned counsel for

Respondent-N.I.A.

13. Per contra, Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel for the

respondent-NIA has taken the following grounds by defending the

impugned order:-

(i) It has been contended that during the course of investigation, it

has been surfaced that accused Dinesh Gope (A-6) has ensured

that portions of the illicit funds were deposited in the accounts of M/s

Shiv Shakti Samriddhi Infra Pvt. Ltd. (A-20), wherein, the Directors

were Hira Devi (A-14), the first wife of accused Dinesh Gope (A-6)

and Fuleshwar Gope, the present appellant (A-17).

(ii) If the entire document will be looked into where the name of the

appellant has been referred as one of the Director of the said

Company along with the reference of Voter Card, Aadhar Card and

the detailed address of the appellant.

(iii) It has been contended that during the course of investigation

by the NIA, the involvement of the present appellant emerged in the

2026:JHHC:2958-DB

7

instant case and evidence against him was collected. Sufficient

prosecutable evidences have been collected against him.

(iv) It has also been contended that the evidences have already

been closed and trial at the stage of 313 Cr.P.C and if the present

appellant is allowed to be released on bail, then he will get all

opportunities to tamper with the evidence as well as influence the

witnesses or he may abscond.

(v) On earlier occasion, the prayer for grant of bail of the present

appellant had already been rejected by this Court, on merit, vide

order dated 21.03.2024 in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 767 of 2022

and thereafter, against the said order, the appellant preferred SLP

being the SLP No. 7703 of 2024 before the Hon’ble Apex Court

which was dismissed vide order dated 03.02.2025. Accordingly, by

referring the aforesaid fact the learned counsel for NIA has

submitted that since on earlier occasion the prayer of the appellant

has already been rejected after due appreciation on merit and the

said order has not been interfered by the Hon’ble Apex Court, and

further there is no change of circumstances in fact or law, therefore

the present appeal is not required any interference by this Court.

(vi) So far, the issue of parity is concerned the co-ordinate Bench of

this Court while rejecting the earlier appeal of the present appellant

in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 767 of 2022 has already considered the issue

of parity and thereafter had negated the said claim of parity,

therefore even in the issue of parity the instant appeal is not fit to be

2026:JHHC:2958-DB

8

allowed.

(vii) It has further been contended that the Hon’ble Apex Court on

03.02.2025 while rejecting the prayer for bail of the present

appellant has taken into consideration the fact that the bail has been

granted to co-accused (Accused No.12) by a Coordinate Bench of

the Hon’ble Apex Court on the same day and even thereafter the

prayer for bail of the present appellant has been rejected and the

Hon’ble Apex Court has categorically observed that “in the peculiar

facts and circumstances of the instant case relating to the petitioner,

we are not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail”.

(viii) Learned counsel referring the aforesaid fact has further

submitted that the Hon’ble Apex Court has taken into consideration

the peculiar facts and circumstances of the instant case has denied

the bail and from the aforesaid finding of the Hon’ble Apex Court it is

evident that the case of the present appellant is on different footing

in compare to other accused persons, therefore the benefit of parity

cannot be extended to the present appellant.

(ix) The applicant/accused Fuleshwar Gope (A-17), being a Director

and authorized signatory of A-20 (shell company), is liable for the

unlawful activities committed by the said company under the

principle of vicarious liability as enshrined in Section 22C of the

UA(P) Act, 1967. His position as an incorporator and operator of a

front company used for terrorist financing renders him culpable for

acts of criminal conspiracy, concealment of proceeds of terrorism,

2026:JHHC:2958-DB

9

and participation in the unlawful objectives of PLFI.

14. Mr. Das, learned counsel for the respondent-NIA, based upon the

aforesaid grounds has submitted that no fresh ground, on facts as well as

on law except the period of custody, has been agitated herein by

renewing the prayer for grant of bail, hence, the instant appeal is also fit to

be dismissed.

Analysis

15. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the

finding recorded by learned Court in the impugned order as also the

charge-sheet and material available on record.

16. This Court, before proceeding to examine the prayer for bail of the

appellant, deems it fit and proper that the requirement as stipulated under

Section 43D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 is

required to be considered herein. Section 43(d)(5) mandates that the

person shall not be released on bail if the court is of the opinion that there

are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusations made are prima

facie true apart from the other offences the appellant is accused of

committing offences under Sections 17, 18 and 21 of the UA(P) Act, 1967.

17. The requirement as stipulated under Section 43D(5) of the UA(P)

Act, 1967 in the matter of grant of regular bail fell for consideration before

the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Investigation Agency v.

Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali, [(2019) 5 SCC 1] wherein it has been held

by interpreting the expression “prima facie true” as stipulated under

Section 43D(5) of the Act, 1967 which would mean that the

2026:JHHC:2958-DB

10

materials/evidence collected by the investigation agency in reference to

the accusation against the accused concerned in the First Information

Report, must prevail until contradicted and overcome or disproved by

other evidence, and on the face of it, shows the complicity of such

accused in commission of the stated offence.

18. It has further been observed that it must be good and sufficient on

its face to establish a given fact or the chain of facts constituting the

stated offence, unless rebutted or contradicted. The degree of satisfaction

is lighter when the Court has to opine that the accusation is “prima facie

true”, as compared to the opinion of the accused “not guilty” of such

offence as required under the other special enactments.

19. It is, thus, evident from the proposition laid down by the Hon'ble

Apex Court in the case of National Investigation Agency v. Zahoor

Ahmad Shah Watali (supra) that while considering the ground of bail

under Section 43D(5) it is the bounden duty of the Court to apply its mind

to examine the entire materials on record for the purpose of satisfying

itself, whether a prima facie case is made out against the accused or not.

20. Before appreciating the contention of the learned counsel for the

parties, it would be apt to refer herein that earlier the prayer for bail was

made before the learned trial court by preferring Misc. Cr. Application No.

566 of 2022 before the NIA Special Court, Ranchi but the same has been

rejected vide order dated 19.05.2022, against which, appeal was

preferred before Division Bench of this Court being Cr. Appeal (DB) No.

767 of 2022 which has also been dismissed, vide order dated 21.03.2024.

2026:JHHC:2958-DB

11

21. Thereafter, the appellant preferred Special Leave Petition before the

Hon’ble Apex Court being SLP No. 7703 of 2024 but vide order dated

03.02.2025, the said petition has also been dismissed.

22. Thereafter, the present appellant again preferred Misc. Cr.

Application for bail before the Special Court being Misc. Cr. Application

No. 1476 of 2025 which has been dismissed vide order dated

18.08.2025, against which, the present appeal has been preferred.

23. Thus, from the aforesaid, it is evident that earlier this Court has

already rejected the prayer for bail of the present appellant, vide order

dated 21.03.2024 passed in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 767 of 2022 on merit by

taking into consideration the evidence available on record as well as the

settled proposition of law. For ready reference, the relevant paragraphs

of the said order are being referred as under:

“41. The 2nd supplementary charge-sheet dated 23.07.2020 has

been appended as Annexure to the main petition and it is evident

from the 2nd supplementary charge-sheet that the appellant has

been charge-sheeted accused (A-17) of the instant case.

42. It is evident from the perusal of charge-sheet that NIA in his

investigation found that the present petitioner (A-17) on the direction

of Dinesh Gope (A-6), knowingly held the amount derived/collected

through extortion/Levy by PLFI and channelized it into the bank

account of M/s Shiv Shaktisamridhhi Infra Pvt Ltd (A-20) which is

mentioned in various paragraphs of the 2nd supplementary charge-

sheet. For ready reference the aforesaid paragraphs are being

quoted herein under: -

“16.4 It is pertinent to mention that the

cadres/members/operatives of proscribed organization, PLFI,

declared unlawful association by the Jharkhand state, are

acquiring huge movable and immovable properties, illegally

earned through extortion/levy amount from the road contractors.

owners of the stone crushers machines, MNREGA works,

2026:JHHC:2958-DB

12

businessmen. private transporters, Mine contractors and other

contractors who are engaged in development projects in

different districts of Jharkhand and the said acquired properties

are Proceeds of Terrorism. They collect funds by unleashing

terror in the minds of populace of the area and thereby the acts

committed by the members of the "terrorist gang" is commission

of offence as defined of terrorist act in section 15 (1) (a) (i) of

UA (P) Act, 1967 as amended.

16.5: Appreciating the gravity of the offence in the instant crime,

the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred

under sub-section 5 of section 6 read with section 8 of the

National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, vide MHA, New Delhi

CTCR Division Order no. 11011/51/2017/IS -IV dated

16.01.2018, directed National Investigation Agency (NIA) to

take up investigation of the case and accordingly the case was

re-registered as NIA case No. RC-02/2018/NIA/DLI dated

19.01.2018 under sections 212, 213, 414, 34 of IPC, section 13,

17 & 40 of UA(P) Act and Section 17 of CLA Act.

16.6: During further investigation, it has been established that

besides collection of the extorted money in the form of Levy, A-

6 is also investing the extorted money in the Companies

opened in the name of his wives A-13 and A-14 and also A-7

and A-17) formed as a part of the larger conspiracy plan.

Therefore, as per plan of A-6 and on his directions, his

associates/ members of PLFI are channelizing levy amount into

alleged legal manner. In addition, it has been established the

PLFI operatives and the associates conspired together in the

name of alleged surrender of A-6, Supremo of PLFI, and huge

amount of extorted money were paid through Hawala

transaction.

16.8: The case was kept under further investigation. During the

course of further investigation, it surfaced that the absconding

accused Dinesh Gope (A-6), supremo of PLFI, continued to

channelize levy amount into legitimate means by

depositing/transferring into the bank accounts of his wives(A 13)

and A-14 and associates by using several Pragya Kendra

operative through various banking channels and also in the

bank accounts of Companies opened in the name of his wives,

2026:JHHC:2958-DB

13

A-13 and A-14, and Sumant Kumar (A-7) and the Fuleshwar

Gope.

17.5 Role and activities of the accused A-7,A-8,A-9,A-10, A

11 & A-12:-

It is established that Dinesh Gope is involved in collecting levy

directly and through his operatives/caders from transporters

contractors etc. As part of the conspiracy, A-6, through his

associates was investing the extorted amount in dubious

companies. Further banking channels were also used to

legalize the illegally extorted money. Investigation further

revealed that Dinesh Gope mobilised various associates

/couriers to operate for furtherance of his unlawful activities.

Initially, extorted levy amount was being converted through A-1

to A-4 and post arrest of A-1 to A-4, he(A-6) assigned the same

task to Sumant Kumar (A-7). As per the conspiracy, A-7 was

holding the post of Director in Mix Bhavya Engicon Pvt. Ltd. (A-

18), M/s Shir Aadi Shakti Minerals Pvt. Ltd A 19) in partnership

with Shakuntala Kumari (A-13), alleged second wife of Dinesh

Gope. After getting funds the Dinesh Gope, Sumant Kumar (A-

7) either himself or in active association with Arun Gape (A-10)

deposited extorted money into the accounts of the above

dubious companies. A-6 also ensured that the finds are

deposited in the account of Shiv Shaktisamridhhi Infra Pvt

Ltd.(A-20), whose director was Hira Devi (A-14) first wife of

Dinesh Gope and another Director was Fuleshwar Gope (A-17),

Sumant Kumar(A-7) and Jitender Kumar (A-11) hatched the

criminal conspiracy in the name of alleged surrender of Dinesh

Gope A-6 self styled chief of PLFI with the association of

Nandlal Swarnkar(A-8), Chandra Shekhar Singh (A-9) &

Navinbhai Jayantibhai Patel (A-12) and arranged/held meeting

with the political leaders in the different parts of the country.

17.6: Revelations of the criminal conspiracy hatched among the

accused persons for channelizing the extorted money of PLFI

into legitimate means by depositing in the bank accounts of

individuals and dubious companies.

17.6.1: Besides the collection of the extorted money in the form

of levy, Dinesh Gope (A-6) invested the extorted money in the

dubious companies formed as part of the larger conspiracy plan

2026:JHHC:2958-DB

14

and on his direction, his associates/members of FLFI

channelized it in the alleged legal manner. It is pertinent to

mention here for this purpose, Dinesh Gope forms various

modules to operate for furtherance of his unlawful activities.

Initially extorted levy amount was getting converted through A-1

to A-4 and post arrest A-1 to A-5, he (A-6) assigned the same

task to another module having the same Modus-operandi, with

the association under the leadership the A-7. A-7 was holding

the post of director in M/s Bhavya Engicon Pvt. Ltd (A-18) and

M/s Shiv Aadi Shakti Minerals Ltd (A-19), with the purpose to

disguise the actual intention with the partnership of Shakuntala

kumari (A-13), alleged second wife of Dinesh Gope(A-6). A-13

also has been Sole Proprietor of a dubious un-registered

Company named Palak Enterprises. Hira Devi (A-14), first wife

of A-6 was joint director (another director is Fuleshwar Gope (A

17) of a Company namely, M/S Shiv Shaktisamridhhi Infra Pvt.

Ltd (A-20). The companies, mentioned above, have been used

for channelizing the funds (levy & extortion) of absconding

accused A-6. After getting funds directly from Dinesh Gope (A

6), Sumant Kumar (A-7) either himself or with active association

of Arun Gope (A-10), other associates of PLFI, and others,

deposited extorted money in the accounts of the above dubious

companies and approximately amount to the tune of approx. Ra

2,68,00,000/-(Rupees Two Crores Sixty Eight Lakhs only) were

channelized into legitimate means.

17.6.2: Sumant Kumar (A-7) in close association of Jitender

Kumar (A-11) hatched the criminal conspiracy in the name of

alleged surrender of A-6, self- styled supremo of PLFI with the

association of A-8, A-9 & A-12 and arranged/held meeting with

the political leaders. As per the plan of A-6, A-7 along with his

associates, were directly, deeply, discreetly involved in the

larger conspiracy and in the commission of the instant crime

and channelized the extorted amount into alleged legitimate

means by depositing the same in the bank accounts of family

members/close associates as well as companies owned by A-7,

A-13, A-14, A-17 or having partnership with them.

17.7.12: During scrutiny of the Axis Bank, Ashok Nagar, Ranchi

account number 916020046701699 in the name of M/S Shiv

2026:JHHC:2958-DB

15

Shaktisamridhhi Infra Pvt. Ltd. (A-20). It is found that Rs.

23,50,000/- had been deposited/transferred from date of

account opening Le. August 2016 to April 2018. Out of the said

amount, Rs. 11,50,000/- were deposited in cash, Rs.

10,00,000/- were transferred from M/s Calvin Planners and

Investors Pvt. Ltd. (they took cash and transferred the money

through cheque) & Rs. 2,00,000/- from A-18. From the said

account, Rs. 12,60,000/- was paid to Birendra Kumar Dubey for

purchasing flat in Kolkata (in name of A-14).

17.12.12: Investigation has established that A-17 has conspired

with A-6, A-7, A-14 to form a company, A-20 along with A-14, to

form a dubious company A-20, to channelize the levy/extorted

funds into legitimate means by raising/depositing funds in the

bank account of A-20.

17.17: Offences established against accused Hira Devi @

Anita Devi (A-14):

A-14 is first wife of A-6 and is well acquainted with the facts that

A-6 is a terrorist and chief of PLFI (People's Liberation Front of

India) and collects/raises levy through extortion. A-14 has

criminally conspired with the members/associates of PLFI, an

Unlawful Association and terrorist gang proscribed by the state

of Jharkhand, namely A-6, A-7, A 1, A-10, A- 15, A-16 & A-17

on the direction of A-6, A-14 had formed a Company namely,

M/S Shiv Shaktisamridhhi Infra Pvt. Ltd (A-20), along with

partnership of A-18 Further, A-14 used to directly or indirectly,

raise or collect funds, either from legitimate or illegitimate

sources or persons namely A-1, A-6, A-7, A-10, A-15, A-16 & A

17 and other associates of A-6, knowing fully well that such

funds are likely to be used by PLFI, a terrorist gang, for their

nefarious/terrorist activities. A-14 is deeply involved in the larger

conspiracy and the commission of instant crime and was

channelizing the extorted amount into legitimate means by

depositing the same in her individual bank accounts and A-20.

It has been proved that A- 14 had knowingly held the huge

amount of levy, collected through extortion by PLFI, and the

said levy amount were used for purchasing flat and her

personal use. A-14 has also knowingly hidden her identity for

the purpose of fraud and impersonation and opened a bank

2026:JHHC:2958-DB

16

account in Central Bank of India with a forged Aadhaar Card in

the name of Anita Devi for raising/collecting levy amount and

channelizing the extorted money. A-14, on the direction of A-6

and with association of A-1, A-7, A-10, A-15 & A- 16, was

deeply involved in the larger conspiracy and in the commission

of the instant crime by channelizing the extorted amount as per

the plan of PLFI. She knowingly held the amount

derived/collected through extortion/levy by PLFI operatives from

commission of any terrorist act (levy, extortion) or acquired

through the terrorist fund, and invested it into A-20 and her

individual bank accounts, for purchasing Flat and personal use.

A-14, on the directions of A-6 and with the association of A-1,

A-7, A- 10, A-13, A-15, A-16 and A-17, was deeply involved in

the larger conspiracy and in the commission of the instant crime

and was channelizing the extorted amount as per the plan of

PLFI.-----

17.20: Offences established against Fuleshwar Gope, the

present appellant (A-17):

It is established that A-17 being an associate of PLFI, is well

acquainted with the facts that A-6 is a terrorist and chief of PLFI

and levy through extortion. A-17 has criminally conspired with

the members/associates of PLFI, an Unlawful Association and

terrorist gang proscribed by the state of Jharkhand, namely A-6,

A-7, A-14. On the direction of A-6, A-17 had formed a Company

namely, M/S Shiv Shaktisamridhhi Infra Pvt. Ltd (A-20), along

with partnership of A-14. Further, A-17 criminally conspired to

directly or indirectly, raise or collect funds, either from legitimate

or illegitimate sources or persons knowing fully well that such

funds are likely to be used by PLFI, a terrorist gang, for their

nefarious/terrorist activities. A-17, on the direction of A-6,

knowingly held the amount derived/collected through

extortion/Levy by PLFI and channelized it into the bank account

of A-20. A-17, on the directions of A- 6 and with the association

of A-7 and A-14, was deeply involved in the larger conspiracy

and in the commission of the instant crime and was

channelizing the extorted amount as per the plan of PLFI.

Thereby, Fuleshwar Gope (A-17) committed offences under

2026:JHHC:2958-DB

17

section 120B of IPC read with sections 17, 18, 21 & 22(C) of the

UA (P) Act and sec 17(i), (ii) of the CLA Act, 1908.

17.21 Offences established against M/s Shiv

Shaktisamridhhi Infra Pvt. Ltd (A-20):

It is established that on the direction of A-6, chief of PLFI, a

terrorist gang and unlawful association proscribed by the State

of Jharkhand, A-14 formed a Company namely, M/S Shiv

Shaktisamridhhi Infra Pvt. Ltd (A-20) along with A-17. A-20 has

been used to directly or indirectly, raise or collect funds, either

from legitimate or illegitimate sources or persons. Further, A-20

has been used for the purpose of channelizing the

extortion/levy amount of A-6. In the garb of doing transparent

business, A-20 became a frontal company to legitimize levy

amounts collected by A-6 as huge amount of money was

deposited in the account of A-20 by A-7, A-10, A-14, A-17 and

other associates of A-6. The Axis bank account of A-20 shows

that A-14 booked a flat by paying amount of Rs 12,60,000, A-20

was not concerned with any conduct of business work and their

bank account has been used only for channelizing the terrorist

fund pertaining to A-6 for acquiring the immovable/movable

property by using this fund and if left unabated, the profit

earned from A-20 could have been further used to purchase

properties, arms and ammunitions and explosives to carry out

terrorist activities by PLFI. Thereby, M/s Shiv Shaktisamridhhi

Infra Pvt Ltd (A-20) committed offences under sections 17, 21 &

22 (C) of the UA (P) Act.”

43. Thus, from perusal of the charge-sheet it appears that Dinesh

Gope (A 6) channelizes levy amount into legitimate means by

depositing/ transferring into the bank accounts of his wives A-13 and

A-14 with the help of Sumant Kumar (A-7) and the present appellant

Fuleshwar Gope (A17), the present appellant.

44. The specific role of the present appellant Fuleshwar Gope has

been mentioned in para 17.20 of the chargesheet wherein it is

alleged that petitioner (A-17) being associate of PLFI was well

acquainted with the facts that A-6 is terrorist and Chief of the PLFI

and he used to collects levy through extortion.

45. It has further come during the investigation that A17 i.e present

appellant has criminally conspired with the members associates of

2026:JHHC:2958-DB

18

the PLFI an unlawful association and terrorist gang proscribed by the

State of Jharkhand namely A 6 and A 7, A 14 and the present

appellant on the direction of the A 6 formed a company namely M/s

Shiv Shakti Samridhi Infra Pvt. Ltd. (A 20).

46. Further it appears from the aforesaid paragraphs that A-14 and

A-17 i.e. present appellant criminally conspired directly or indirectly

and they raised or collected fund from legitimate or illegitimate

source or the persons likely to be used by PLFI for their nefarious

terrorist activities. The appellant Fuleshwar Gope on the direction of

the A-6 knowingly held the amount collected through levy by PLFI

and channelized it into the bank account of A 20 in association of

Sumant Kumar A -7 and Hira Devi(A -14).

47. From aforementioned paragraph of 2nd supplementary charge-

sheet it appears that there is prima facie allegation against petitioner

that he by making criminal conspiracy invested extortion money

collected by PLFI cadre on the direction of the PLFI supremo namely

Dinesh Gope (A-6) with the help of Shakuntala Kumari (A-13) , Hira

Devi alias Anita Devi (A 14) ,Sumant Kumar @ Pawan Kumar (A 7) ,

Chandra Shekhar Singh (A 9) which was used by the PLFI supremo

for anti-National activities challenging the sovereignty and integrity as

well as national interest of Government of India.

48. Thus from aforementioned paragraphs of 2nd supplementary

charge-sheet prima-facie it appears that the present appellant was

well acquainted with the facts that Dinesh Gope (A-6) is a terrorist

and chief of PLFI and collects levy through extortion and the

appellant, has criminally conspired with the members/associates of

PLFI, an Unlawful Association and terrorist gang proscribed by the

state of Jharkhand, namely Dinesh Gope (A-6), Sumant Kumar (A-7),

Hira Devi (A-14) and further on the directions of Dinesh Gope A-6, A-

17 (Fuleshwar Gope) the appellant, had formed a Company namely,

M/S Shiv Shakti Samridhhi Infra Pvt. Ltd (A-20), in partnership with

Hira Devi (A- 14). Further appears that the present appellant on the

direction of Dinesh Gope (A-6), knowingly held the amount

derived/collected through extortion/Levy by PLFI and channelized it

into the bank account of M/s Shiv Shakti Samriddhi Intra Pvt. Ltd. (A

20). 49. Thus, prima-facie it appears that the present appellant on the

directions of Dinesh Gope (A 6) and with the association of Sumant

Kumar (A-7) and Hira Devi (A-14), was deeply involved in the larger

2026:JHHC:2958-DB

19

conspiracy and was channelizing the extorted amount as per the plan

of PLFI a proscribed terrorist organization.

50. The learned counsel for the appellant by referring to the

certificate issued by the Registrar of Company wherein Appellant is

shown as the Director of M/s. Shiv Shaktisamridhhi Infra Pvt. Ltd. (A

20) has contended that the said document as has been appended by

way of a supplementary affidavit by the respondent NIA, cannot be

said to be the cogent evidence to implicate the appellant in the

commission of crime.

51. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent NIA has

submitted that that the said document which has been appended in

the supplementary affidavit is genuine and reliable as such the

contention regarding the genuineness of the document is totally

misplaced.

52. This Court, after appreciating the aforesaid argument, is of the

view that since this Court is to make out a prima-facie view based

upon the principle as provided under Section 43D(5) of the U.A.(P)

Act, therefore, is of the view that the genuineness of the document is

not looked into at this stage, rather, for the purpose of making a

prima-facie view, the document pertaining to creation of the said

company, prima-facie is available against the appellant.

53. Further, The learned counsel for the appellant has taken the

ground of parity and submits that the other co-accused person,

namely, Jitendra Kumar and Jai Prakash Singh Bhuiyan has been

directed to be released on bail by co-ordinate bench of this Court

vide order dated 08.05.2023 and 05.01.2024 passed in Cr. Appeal

(DB) No.514 of 2020 and Cr. Appeal (DB) No.14 of 2021

respectively.

54. The learned counsel for the appellant has further taken the

reference of the order dated 03.10.2023 passed in Cr. Appeal (DB)

No. 201 of 2020 by which accused persons namely Binod Kumar,

Chandra Shekhar Kumar, Nand Kishore Mahto, Mohan Kumar has

been granted bail.

55. In the backdrop of aforesaid contention, the learned counsel for

the appellant has submitted that since the other co accused persons

have already been granted bail, therefore the present appellant may

be enlarged on bail.

2026:JHHC:2958-DB

20

56. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent NIA has

submitted that the case of the instant appellant is on different footing

in comparison to the other accused persons who have already been

granted bail. It is further submitted that co-ordinate Bench of this

Court had denied the privilege of bail to another-co accused namely

Navinbhai Jayantibhai Patel in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 556 of 2020 and

the case of the present appellant is nearer to the Navinbhai

Jayantibhai Patel, as such the present appellant is not entitled for the

bail on the instance of parity.

63. It is evident from aforesaid paragraph that the major charge,

which has been levelled against the Jai Prakash Singh Bhuiya, is that

of being involved in a larger conspiracy along with several other co

accused persons in channelizing the extorted money of Dinesh Gope

(A-6) into the account of Hira Devi @ Anita Devi (A-14) and other

persons.

64. Further so far, the other co-accused namely Jitendra Kumar is

concern the major charge, which has been levelled against him, is

that of being involved in a larger conspiracy along with several other

co-accused persons in channelizing the extorted money of Dinesh

Gope (A-6) into the account of Hira Devi @ Anita Devi (A-14) and

other persons.

65. Further, the allegation against the other accused persons namely

Binod Kumar(A-1), Chandra Shekhar Kumar, Nand Kishore Mahto

Rajesh Kumar @ Mohan Kumar that they are of being involved in

criminal conspiracy with the other accused persons more particularly

PLFI supremo – Dinesh Gope into channelizing the extorted money

into legitimate means. What would further be apparent is that the

appellants were acting as conduits in channelizing such ill-gotten

money.

66. This Court has already referred hereinabove the allegation

against the present appellant that he is one of the Director of the

Company in the name and style of M/s. Shiv Shaktisamridhhi Infra

Pvt. Ltd. and prima facie allegation against present appellant is like

that he, by making criminal conspiracy invested extortion money

collected by PLFI cadre on the direction of the PLFI supremo namely

Dinesh Gope (A-6) with the help of Shakuntala Kumari (A-13) , Hira

Devi @ Anita Devi (A 14), Sumant Kumar @ Pawan Kumar (A 7) ,

Chandra Shekhar Singh (A 9), which was used by the PLFI supremo

2026:JHHC:2958-DB

21

for anti-National activities challenging the sovereignty and integrity as

well as national interest of Government of India.

67. The document has also been appended with the supplementary

affidavit, issued by the Registrar of Company from whose Office the

said Company has been registered. However, the genuineness of the

said document has been questioned but since this Court is to make

out a prima-facie view based upon the principle as provided under

Section 43D(5) of the U.A.(P) Act, therefore, is of the view that the

genuineness is not looked into at this stage, rather, for the purpose of

making a prima-facie view, the document pertaining to creation of the

said company by the Office, prima-facie is available against the

appellant.

68. This Court, after taking into consideration the fact that this

appellant was an active member of the Company in the capacity of

one of the Director of the Company, i.e., M/s. Shiv Shaktisamridhhi

Infra Pvt. Ltd., while, on the other hand, the allegation against the co

accused persons, is on different footing hence, is of the view that the

principle of parity will not be applicable.

71. This Court, merely on the basis of the custody by taking the

ground of violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the same

since has already been dealt with by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the

case of Gurwinder Singh (Supra) even after taking into consideration

the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of K.A.

Najeeb (Supra), therefore, is of the view that the parameter which

statutorily has been provided under Section 43D(5) is to be taken into

consideration for the purpose of consideration of bail, if the allegation

as per the material collected in course of investigation is found to be

prima-facie untrue then only prayer for bail, can be considered.

While, if the allegation has been found to be prima-facie true, the

privilege of bail cannot be granted.

72. This Court, based upon the aforesaid reason, is of the view that

the order passed by the learned court while rejecting the prayer for

bail, suffers from no infirmity.

74. Accordingly, the instant appeal fails and is dismissed.”

24. Thus, from the aforesaid paragraphs, it is evident that earlier the

prayer for bail of the preset appellant has been rejected by this Court

2026:JHHC:2958-DB

22

after due appreciation of the evidence available on record and further,

taking into consideration the culpability of the present appellant and his

nexus with extremist outfit.

25. Against the said order, the present appellant has preferred the

Special Leave Petition being SLP No. 7703 of 2024 before the Hon’ble

Apex Court but vide order dated 03.02.2025 the said petition has also

been dismissed, for ready reference, the order passed by the Hon’ble

Apex Court is being referred herein, which reads as under:

“1. Petitioner lays challenge to the order dated 21st March, 2014

passed by the High Court of Jharkhand in Cr. Appeal

(DB)No.767/2022, whereby the petitioner’s application for bail

stands rejected. The prosecution alleges the petitioner to be the

principal accused in carrying out activities, illegal in nature, and,

against the interest of the State.

2. The Petitioner is facing trial in connection with Bero P.S. Case

No.67 of 2016.

3. Since the date of issuance of notice in the present petition, we

notice that trial has substantially progressed and is almost nearing

completion.

4. Mr. Balaji Srinivasan, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner submits that today co-accused (Accused No.12) stands

granted bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court.

5. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the instant case

relating to the petitioner, we are not inclined to enlarge the

petitioner on bail.

6. The present Special Leave Petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

7. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.”

2026:JHHC:2958-DB

23

26. Thus, from the aforesaid it is evident that the Hon’ble Supreme

Court even taking note of the fact that bail has been granted to the

accused no.12, has dismissed the prayer for bail of the present appellant

and the Hon’ble Apex Court while dismissing the said petition has also

taken into consideration the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case

relating to the petitioner/present appellant.

27. It needs to refer herein that the Hon’ble Apex Court in a judgment

rendered in Gurwinder Singh Vs State of Punjab and Another

reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 109 while taking into consideration the

judgment as rendered in National Investigation Agency v. Zahoor

Ahmad Shah Watali (supra) has observed that, the proviso to Sub-

section (5) of Section 43D puts a complete embargo on the powers of

the Special Court to release an accused on bail and lays down that if the

Court, ‘on perusal of the case diary or the report made under Section

173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure’, is of the opinion that there are

reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation, against such

person, as regards commission of offence or offences under Chapter IV

and/or Chapter VI of the UAP Act is prima facie true, such accused

person shall not be released on bail or on his own bond.

28. The Hon’ble Apex Court further observed that the conventional idea

in bail jurisprudence vis-à-vis ordinary penal offences that the discretion

of Courts must tilt in favour of the oft-quoted phrase - ‘bail is the rule, jail

is the exception’ - unless circumstances justify otherwise - does not find

any place while dealing with bail applications under UAP Act and the

2026:JHHC:2958-DB

24

‘exercise’ of the general power to grant bail under the UAP Act is

severely restrictive in scope.

29. In the aforesaid context, it has further been observed by the Hon’ble

Supreme Court that the Courts are, therefore, burdened with a sensitive

task on hand and in dealing with bail applications under UAP Act, the

courts are merely examining if there is justification to reject bail and the

‘justifications’ must be searched from the case diary and the final report

submitted before the Special Court.

30. In the aforesaid background, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that

the test for rejection of bail is quite plain and Bail must be rejected as a

‘rule’, if after hearing the public prosecutor and after perusing the final

report or Case Diary, the Court arrives at a conclusion that there are

reasonable grounds for believing that the accusations are prima facie

true. It has further been observed that it is only if the test for rejection of

bail is not satisfied - that the Courts would proceed to decide the bail

application in accordance with the ‘tripod test’ (flight risk, influencing

witnesses, tampering with evidence).

31. In this background, the test for rejection of bail is quite plain. Bail

must be rejected as a ‘rule’, if after hearing the public prosecutor and

after perusing the final report or Case Diary, the Court arrives at a

conclusion that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the

accusations are prima facie true. It is only if the test for rejection of bail is

not satisfied that the Courts would proceed to decide the bail application

in accordance with the ‘tripod test’ (flight risk, influencing witnesses,

2026:JHHC:2958-DB

25

tampering with evidence). This position is made clear by Sub-section (6)

of Section 43D, which lays down that the restrictions, on granting of bail

specified in Sub-section (5), are in addition to the restrictions under the

Code of Criminal Procedure or any other law for the time being in force

on grant of bail.

32. At the cost of repetition, it needs to refer herein that the appellant

earlier prayed for bail before the learned trial court by preferring Misc.

Criminal Application No. 566 of 2022 but the same had been rejected

vide order dated 19.05.2022, against which, appeal was preferred being

Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 767 of 2022 which has also been dismissed, vide

order dated 21.03.2024.

33. Thereafter, the appellant preferred Special Leave Petition before the

Hon’ble Apex Court vide SLP No. 7703 of 2024, which was dismissed

vide order dated 03.02.2025. Thereafter, the present appellant again

preferred Misc. Cr. Application No. 1476 of 2025 which has been

dismissed, vide order dated 18.08.2025, against which, the present

appeal has been preferred.

34. The learned trial court in the order dated 18.08.2025 has taken into

consideration that prayer for bail of the appellant had already been

rejected up to the Hon’ble Apex Court. The Special Court while going

through the 2nd Supplementary Charge Sheet filed by N.I.A. dated

23.07.2020 has taken into consideration the culpability of the present

appellant. In the said 2nd Supplementary Charge-Sheet, the allegation

against the petitioner is that he is an associate of P.L.F.I. and he was

2026:JHHC:2958-DB

26

well acquainted with the facts that Dinesh Gope (A-6) is a terrorist and

Chief of a terrorist gang namely P.L.F.I. and collects / raises levy through

extortion. On the direction of said Dinesh Gope (A-6), accused/petitioner

(appellant herein) (A-17) formed a Company, namely, M/s Shiv Shakti

Samridhi Infra Pvt. Ltd. (A-20). The petitioner (A-17), on the direction of

A-6, knowingly held the amount derived/collected through extortion/Levy

by the members of P.L.F.I. (banned terrorist outfit) and channelized it

into the bank account of M/s Shiv Shakti Samridhi Infra Pvt. Ltd. (A-20).

Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts, the learned special court

has observed in the order impugned herein that a prima facie case is

being made out against the appellant on the basis of evidence collected

by the NIA during investigation.

35. Hence, the learned trial court, taking into consideration the

seriousness of the crime and role played by the petitioner, has rejected

the prayer for bail of the present appellant.

36. Thus, from the aforesaid factual aspect, it is evident that earlier this

Court has already considered the prayer for bail of the appellant, on

merit, and the said order has already been upheld by the Hon’ble Apex

Court and now, the learned counsel for the appellant has renewed the

prayer for bail of the present appellant upon the the ground of parity as

well as custody of the appellant who is languishing in judicial custody

since, 2020.

Issue of long incarceration

2026:JHHC:2958-DB

27

37. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to refer herein that only the

long incarceration is not the ground to be looked into for enlarging the

accused on bail, rather, the accusation so made against the accused

persons as also societal impact is also to be taken care of.

38. It requires to refer herein that the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of

Gurwinder Singh v. State of Punjab(supra) taking into consideration

the ratio of judgment of Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb, (2021) 3 SCC

713 has observed that mere delay in trial pertaining to grave offences as

one involved in the instant case cannot be used as a ground to grant

bail, for ready reference, the relevant paragraph is being quoted 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 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.”

39. The Hon’ble Apex Court in its recent judgment in the case of

Gulfisha Fatima versus State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) 2026 LiveLaw

(SC) 1 while appreciating the implication of Article 21 vis-vis Section

43D (5) of the Act 1967 and taking into the consideration the ratio laid

down in the case of Gurwinder Singh v. State of Punjab (supra) has

categorically observed that If prosecutions alleging offences which

implicate the sovereignty, integrity, or security of the State, delay does

2026:JHHC:2958-DB

28

not operate as a trump card that automatically displaces statutory

restraint, for ready reference, the relevant paragraphs of the aforesaid

judgment are being quoted as under:

“35. The proper constitutional question, therefore, is not

whether Article 21 is superior to Section 43D (5). The proper

question is how Article 21 is to be applied where Parliament has

expressly conditioned the grant of bail in relation to offences

alleged to implicate national security. The law does not

contemplate an either-or approach. Nor does it contemplate an

unstructured blending of statutory and constitutional

considerations. What is required is disciplined judicial scrutiny

that gives due regard to both.

47. A closely allied consideration is the role attributed to the

accused. Prosecutions under the UAPA may allege varying

degrees of participation, ranging from peripheral acts to

strategic, organisational, or ideological centrality. The

constitutional significance of prolonged incarceration cannot be

assessed uniformly for all accused regardless of role. Where

the attribution suggests a central or organising role in the

alleged design, the need for circumspection before

constitutional intervention displaces a statutory embargo is

correspondingly greater. Conversely, where the role is

peripheral or episodic, prolonged incarceration may more

readily assume a punitive character.

56. It therefore becomes necessary to state, with clarity, the

governing approach. In prosecutions alleging offences which

implicate the sovereignty, integrity, or security of the State,

delay does not operate as a trump card that automatically

displaces statutory restraint. Rather, delay serves as a trigger

for heightened judicial scrutiny. The outcome of such scrutiny

must be determined by a proportional and contextual balancing

of legally relevant considerations, including (i) the gravity and

statutory character of the offence alleged, (ii) the role attributed

to the accused within the alleged design or conspiracy, (iii) the

strength of the prima facie case as it emerges at the limited

threshold contemplated under the special statute, and (iv) the

2026:JHHC:2958-DB

29

extent to which continued incarceration, viewed cumulatively in

the facts of the case, has become demonstrably

disproportionate so as to offend the guarantee of personal

liberty under Article 21.

58. In Gurwinder Singh v. State of Punjab, this Court

expressly cautioned against the mechanical invocation of

prolonged incarceration as a ground for bail in cases involving

serious offences under special enactments. The judgment

reiterates that the gravity of the offence, the legislative context,

and the prima facie material on record cannot be eclipsed

merely because the trial has taken time.

59. This Court in CBI v. Dayamoy Mahato reiterated that while

Article 21 remains paramount, it does not operate in a vacuum

divorced from competing constitutional interests. The Court

emphasized that claims to liberty must be examined in the

totality of circumstances, particularly where allegations implicate

organised criminality or matters of public interest. Delay, though

undoubtedly significant, was held not to assume the character

of an absolute or solitary determinant. The emphasis, once

again, was on structured judicial reasoning rather than on

formulaic outcomes.”

40. Thus, on the basis of the aforesaid settled position of law, it is

evident that mere delay in trial pertaining to grave offences, as one

involved in the instant case, cannot be used as a ground to grant bail.

41. There is no dispute and it cannot be disputed that the

jurisprudence of Article 21 has, as it develops, recognised various

facets to be intrinsic to the right to life and liberty such as speedy trial,

timely completion of investigation, fair trial etc. but at the same time

circumspection in granting the relief of bail in offences that harmful to

sovereignty and integrity of the nation such as in this case, stems from

a place of concern, understandably legitimate at that, about public

order, societal security, overall peace and the general deterrent force

2026:JHHC:2958-DB

30

in criminal law.

42. The scales of Justice must balance on the one hand-the

constitutionally consecrated and jealously guarded right under Article

21 and on the other, the recognition that individual liberty is not

absolute and is subject to just exceptions i.e. the paramount

considerations of national interest, sovereignty and integrity of the

nation.

43. There can be no manner of doubt on the proposition that

Article 21 rights are placed on a pedestal, and rightly so, at the same

time, though, the individual cannot always be the centre of attention.

Certain cases such as the instant one demand, by their very nature

and effect that the issue presented is looked at from a much wider

point of view i.e., national security. We observe, therefore, that while

Article 21 rights must always be protected, but however, in cases

where the security or integrity of the nation is called into question, the

long incarceration cannot be the sole ground of consideration.

44. The act of the accused persons must be looked at, on the

whole, and all relevant factors must be given due consideration while

granting or denying bail. Needless to add, any Court seized of bail

application(s) arising out of such offences must record, in their order

the reasons and factors that weighed with them in the ultimate

outcome.

45. In view of the discussion made above it is the settled fact that

the rights of an individual are always subservient to the nation’s

2026:JHHC:2958-DB

31

interest.

46. Further, in the case of Gurwinder Singh vs. State of Punjab

(supra) and in the case of the Union of India vs. Barakathullah etc.,

reported in 2024 INSC 452, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has expressed

its concern to the threat raised by terrorist organizations and held that

where the accusations against the respondents are prima facie true,

the mandate contained in the proviso to Section 43D(5) of the UA(P)

Act would become applicable and the accused would not be released

on bail.

47. Herein, the learned counsel for the respondent NIA has

submitted at Bar that in the instant case, the evidences have already

been closed and trial is at the stage of 313 Cr.P.C and if the present

appellant is allowed to be released on bail, then, he will get all

opportunities to tamper with the evidence as well as influence the

witnesses or he may abscond.

48. On the basis discussion made hereinabove, the contention of

learned counsel for the appellant that appellant is eligible for bail on

the ground of custody, is not fit to be accepted.

Issue of parity

49. Further, the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that

after 03.02.2025, i.e., when prayer for bail of the present appellant has

been rejected, the other co-accused person who are similarly placed

namely, Sumant Kumar (A-7), Shakuntla Kumari (A-13) and Herra Devi

2026:JHHC:2958-DB

32

(A-14) have been directed to be released on bail by the Hon’ble Apex

Court and by co-ordinate Bench of this Court.

50. In the backdrop of aforesaid contention, the learned counsel for the

appellant has submitted that since, the other similarly placed co-accused

persons have already been granted bail, therefore, the present appellant

may be enlarged on bail.

51. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent-NIA has

submitted that the case of the instant appellant is on different footing in

comparison to the other accused persons, against whom, parity has

been claimed.

52. In the backdrop of the aforesaid contention, this Court is now

proceeding to examine the issue of parity. The law is well settled that the

principle of parity is to be applied if the case of the fact is exactly similar,

then, only the principle of parity will be applied in the matter of passing

order but if there is difference in between the facts, then, the principle of

parity, is not to be applied.

53. It is further settled connotation of law that Court cannot exercise its

powers in a capricious manner and has to consider the totality of

circumstances before granting bail and by only simply saying that

another accused has been granted bail, is not sufficient to determine

whether a case for grant of bail on the basis of parity has been

established.

2026:JHHC:2958-DB

33

54. Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Tarun Kumar Versus

Assistant Director Directorate of Enforcement, reported in (2023)

SCC OnLine SC 1486 has observed that parity is not the law and while

applying the principle of parity, the Court is required to focus upon the

role attached to the accused whose application is under consideration.

55. It needs to refer herein that the Hon’ble Apex Court on 03.02.2025

while rejecting the prayer for bail of the present appellant has taken into

consideration the fact that the bail has been granted to co-accused

(Accused No.12) by a Coordinate Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court on the

very same day and even thereafter, the prayer for bail of the present

appellant has been rejected and while rejecting the bail, the Hon’ble Apex

Court has categorically observed that “in the peculiar facts and

circumstances of the instant case relating to the petitioner, we are not

inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail”

56. In the light of aforesaid settled position of law and factual aspect

this Court has examined the allegations, as have been alleged against the

present appellant vis-à-vis, the other co-accused, against whom, parity

has been claimed.

57. It is evident from the perusal of charge-sheet that NIA in the

investigation found that the present petitioner (A-17) on the direction of

Dinesh Gope (A-6), knowingly held the amount derived/collected through

extortion/Levy by PLFI and channelized it into the bank account of M/s

Shiv Shaktisamridhhi Infra Pvt Ltd (A-20) which is mentioned in various

paragraphs of the 2

nd

supplementary charge-sheet.

2026:JHHC:2958-DB

34

58. Thus, from perusal of the charge-sheet, it appears that Dinesh Gope

(A-6) channelized levy amount into legitimate means by depositing/

transferring into the bank accounts of his wives A-13 and A-14 with the

help of the present appellant.

59. This Court has already taken note of the allegation against the

present appellant while earlier rejecting the prayer for bail of the present

appellant that he is one of the Director of the Company in the name and

style of M/s. Shiv Shaktisamridhhi Infra Pvt. Ltd. and prima facie

allegation against present appellant is like that he, by making criminal

conspiracy invested extortion money collected by PLFI cadre on the

direction of the PLFI supremo namely Dinesh Gope (A-6) with the help of

Shakuntala Kumari (A-13) , Hira Devi @ Anita Devi (A 14), Sumant

Kumar @ Pawan Kumar (A 7), which was used by the PLFI supremo for

anti-National activities challenging the sovereignty and integrity as well

as national interest of Government of India.

60. This Court, after taking into consideration the fact that this appellant

was an active member of the Company in the capacity of one of the

Directors of the Company, i.e., M/s. Shiv Shaktisamridhhi Infra Pvt. Ltd.,

while, on the other hand, the allegation against the co-accused persons,

is on different footing as it is apparent from record that they were

assisting the present appellant in investing extortion money collected by

PLFI cadre. It appears from the material available on record that the

present appellant played a pivotal role in operating the financial module

of PLFI and he, knowingly held and moved terror funds under the pretext

2026:JHHC:2958-DB

35

of company operations, thereby, enabling the PLFI to sustain its unlawful

activities and further its secessionist objectives, hence, is of the view that

the principle of parity will not be applicable.

61. Further, this Court is of the view that since, in the instant case trial is

at fag end and further, this Court has already expressed its view on merit

in earlier appeal which has been filed by the appellant for prayer of bail,

therefore, it is considered view of this Court that it is not required for this

Court to reiterate its view on merit.

62. This Court, merely on the basis of the custody by taking the ground

of violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the same since has

already been dealt with by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of

Gurwinder Singh (Supra) even after taking into consideration the

judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of K.A. Najeeb

(Supra), therefore, is of the view that the parameter which statutorily has

been provided under Section 43D(5) is to be taken into consideration for

the purpose of consideration of bail, if the allegation as per the material

collected in course of investigation is found to be prima-facie untrue then

only prayer for bail, can be considered. While, if the allegation has been

found to be prima-facie true, the privilege of bail cannot be granted.

63. This Court, based upon the aforesaid reason, is of the view that the

order passed by the learned court while rejecting the prayer for bail,

suffers from no infirmity.

64. On basis of the discussion made hereinabove and taking into

consideration that this Court has earlier expressed its view on merit with

2026:JHHC:2958-DB

36

regard to the prayer for grant of bail of the present appellant which has

not been interfered with by the Hon’ble Apex Court and further there is

no vital change in circumstances as no fresh ground has been agitated

herein as also taking into consideration the submission advanced on

behalf of the respondent-NIA that the trial is at fag end, this Court is of

the view that the order impugned dated 18.08.2025 passed in Misc.

Criminal Application No. 1476 of 2025 requires no interference.

65. Accordingly, the instant appeal fails and is, dismissed.

66. Pending Interlocutory Application(s), if any, also stands dismissed.

67. 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.)

I Agree

(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)

(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)

04/02/2026

Rohit/-A.F.R.

Uploaded on 05.02.2026