Jharkhand High Court
Munesh Ganjhu vs Union Of India on 5 March, 2025
Author: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay, Ambuj Nath
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 555 of 2024
...........
Munesh Ganjhu, S/o Nirmal Ganjhu, R/o Village- Gonda
Raham, P.O. & P.S.- Piparwar, District- Chatra ... ... 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 RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH
...........
For the Appellant : Mr. Balaji Shrinivasan, Advocate
Mr. Niranjan Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent-NIA : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Spl. P.P.
...........
C.A.V. on 15/10/2024 Pronounced on 05/03/2025
Per Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.
Heard Mr. Balaji Shrinivasan, learned counsel for the
appellant and Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned Special P.P. for the
respondent-NIA, Ranchi.
2. This appeal is directed against the order dated
24.02.2024 passed in Misc. Criminal Application No.
3184/2023, in connection with Special (NIA) Case No. 03/2018,
corresponding to R.C. Case No. 06/2018/NIA/DLI, arising out of
Tandwa P.S. Case No. 02/2016 by Sri Madhuresh Kumar
Verma, learned AJC-XVI-cum-Special Judge, NIA, Ranchi,
whereby and whereunder, the prayer for bail of the appellant has
been rejected.
3. A written report was submitted by Ramdhari Singh,
Sub Inspector of Police, posted at Simaria P.S. to the effect that
on 10.01.2016 a secret information was received by the
Superintendent of Police that in Amrapali Magadh Coal area in
Tandwa some local people have formed an association which is
related to the banned extremist outfit TPC. The members of such
-1-
association were extracting levy from coal traders and DO
holders by creating fear in the name of the extremists of TPC,
namely Gopal Singh Bhokta @ Brijesh Ganjhu, Mukesh Ganjhu,
Kohram Ji, Akraman Ji @ Ravindra Ganjhu, Anischay Ganjhu,
Bhikan Ganjhu, Deepu Singh @ Bhikan and Bindu Ghanju. It
was also alleged that if any businessmen hesitates to pay levy,
they are threatened by members of such organization and are
also subjected to hardships. In order to verify the truthfulness or
otherwise of such information a raiding party was constituted on
the orders of the Superintendent of Police, Chatra. A raid was
conducted in the house of the President of the association Binod
Kumar Ganjhu and from under his bed as well as from an
almirah Rs. 91,75,890/- was recovered. No satisfactory
explanation could be submitted by Binod Kumar Ganjhu with
respect to the recovery of such a huge amount of cash. From the
house of Binod Kumar Ganjhu two persons were also
apprehended who disclosed their names as Birbal Ganjhu and
Munesh Ganjhu and on search of their persons a loaded Mauser
pistol was recovered from the possession of Birbal Ganjhu while
from the possession of Munesh Ganjhu a country made pistol
and two live cartridges were recovered. Both had confessed of
being associated with TPC organization. Binod Ganjhu had
disclosed that he is the President of “Magadh Sanchalan
Samittee” and the levy collected is sent to Gopal Singh Bhogta @
Brijesh Ganjhu and thereafter it is distributed between Mukesh
Ganjhu, Kohramji, Akramanji @ Ravindra Ganjhu, Anischyaji,
Bhikan Ganjhu and Deepu Singh @ Bhikan. He had further
disclosed that Bindu Ganjhu is a member of “Amrapali
Sanchalan Samittee” who collects levy on behalf of TPC and
since he is at present in Jail the collection of levy is being done
by Pradeep Ram. On such information a raid was conducted in
the house of Pradeep Ram and from under his bed as well as
-2-
from an almirah Rs. 57,57,710/- in cash was recovered. No
satisfactory explanation could be given by Pradeep Ram with
respect to the cash recovered.
4. Based on the aforesaid allegations Tandwa P.S. Case
No. 02 of 2016 was instituted for the offences under Sections
414, 384, 386, 387, 120B of the I.P.C., Section 25(1-b)(a), 26/35
of the Arms Act and Section 17 (1)(2) of Criminal Law
Amendment Act against Binod Kumar Ganjhu, Munesh Ganjhu,
Pradeep Ram, Birbal Ganjhu, Gopal Singh Bhokta @ Brijesh
Ganjhu, Mukesh Ganjhu, Kohramji, Akramanji @ Ravindra
Ganjhu, Anischya Ganjhu, Deepu Singh @ Bhikan, Bindu
Ganjhu @ Bindeshwar Ganjhu and Bhikan Ganjhu.
On 10.03.2016 charge sheet was submitted against
the other accused persons before the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Chatra. On 09.04.2017 on the prayer made by the
Investigating Officer offences under Sections 16, 17, 20 and 23
of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (herein after
referred to as the UAP Act for the sake of brevity) were added.
Since the offences involved a scheduled offence, in exercise of
powers conferred u/s 6(3) read with Section 8 of the National
Investigation Agency, Act 2008, the Central Government vide
order dated 13.02.2018 had directed the National Investigation
Agency to take up the investigation of the case consequent to
which Tandwa P.S. Case No. 02 of 2016 was reregistered as NIA
Case No. RC-06/2018/NIA/DLI.
The first supplementary charge sheet bearing Charge
Sheet No. 32/2018 was filed by the NIA on 21.12.2018.
5. It has been submitted by Mr. Balaji Shrinivasan,
learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is a coal
trader and a social activist and he has been implicated primarily
on account of the fact that he was present in the house of co-
accused Binod Ganjhu who has subsequently been granted bail
-3-
by this Court. The Investigating Agency has failed to produce any
documentary evidence in order to prove that the appellant is a
member of the terrorist organization. It has also been submitted
that the appellant was in judicial custody from 12.01.2016 till
11.11.2016 and was arrested by the N.I.A. on 29.06.2018 which
would indicate that the appellant is in custody for more than six
and a half years.
6. Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned Special P.P. for the NIA
has opposed the prayer for bail of the appellant while submitting
that the appellant has been found to be an active member of a
terrorist organization and was closely associated with the top
leaders of the said organization. It has been submitted that the
trial is its fag end and no new ground has been projected by the
appellant for reconsideration of his prayer for bail.
7. The appellant has been arrayed as A-2 in the first
supplementary charge-sheet and the role and activities
attributed to the appellant has been enumerated in para 17.13
of the said charge-sheet which reads as follows:
“17.13 Role and activities of / offences
established against Munesh Ganjhu (A-2):
Therefore, as per the averments made hereinabove / in
the pre-paragraphs, it is established that he is armed
cadre of TPC. He, being member of terrorist gang, was
closely associated with top leaders of the gang and
used to extort levy from coal transporters / contractors
and raised funds for the terrorist gang. He was
arrested on 11.01.2016 with fire arms and
ammunitions. Therefore, it is established that Munesh
Ganjhu (A-2), by becoming member of terrorist gang /
unlawful association TPC, proscribed by Government of
Jharkhand, assisted in the operations / management
of TPC in criminal conspiracy with members of the
terrorist gang including A-1, A-3, A-4, A-14 with intent
to aid the above said terrorist gang collected funds from
illegitimate sources through extortion from the
contractors / coal traders / Coal Transporters and
further was in unauthorized possession of fire arms
and ammunition and conspired with co-accused for
terrorist act. Thereby accused Munesh Ganjhu (A-2)
-4-
committed offences under sections 120B r/w 387, 384,
386, 414 of the IPC, sections 17, 18, and 20 of the
UA(P) Act, 25(1B)a, 26 and 35 of the Arms Act, section
17 of the CLA Act, 1908.”
8. The appellant had moved for grant of bail in Cr.
Appeal (D.B.) No. 558 of 2019 which was dismissed vide order
dated 12.09.2022 with a direction to the learned trial court to
conclude the trial within a period of one year. One of the co-
accused Bindeshwar Ganjhu @ Bindu Ganju on his rejection of
bail by this Court had moved the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 7609/2022 which was
disposed of on 28.11.2022 with a direction to the learned trial
court to conclude the trial within a period of one year. The
extension for conclusion of trial was sought for by the learned
trial court vide Misc. Application No. 2653/2023 and vide order
dated 12.01.2024 the time stipulated has been extended by one
year. We have been informed that the trial has not been
concluded.
9. In the case of “Union of India versus K.A. Najeeb“,
reported in (2021) 3 SCC 713, it has been held as follows:
“17. It is thus clear to us that the presence of
statutory restrictions like Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA per
se does not oust the ability of the constitutional courts to
grant bail on grounds of violation of Part III of the
Constitution. Indeed, both the restrictions under a statute
as well as the powers exercisable under constitutional
jurisdiction can be well harmonised. Whereas at
commencement of proceedings, the courts are expected to
appreciate the legislative policy against grant of bail but
the rigours of such provisions will melt down where there
is no likelihood of trial being completed within a
reasonable time and the period of incarceration already
undergone has exceeded a substantial part of the
prescribed sentence. Such an approach would safeguard
against the possibility of provisions like Section 43-D(5) of
the UAPA being used as the sole metric for denial of bail
or for wholesale breach of constitutional right to speedy
trial.”
-5-
10. In “Vinod Kumar Ganjhu @ Binod Ganjhu @ Binod
Kumar Ganjhu versus State through National Investigation
Agency, Ranchi” in Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 1019 of 2018
while granting bail this Court had also taken into consideration
the period of custody of the appellant in the following manner:
“16. The appellant is in custody since
30.06.2018 and is on the verge of completion of 6
years in custody. The long incarceration of the
appellant would also be a dominant feature while
considering grant of bail apart from the fact that the
trial has not yet been concluded which have been
taken into consideration in the case of “Union of
India Vs. K. A. Najeeb” (supra) noted above.”
11. Another of the co-accused namely, Birbal Ganjhu has
been granted bail by this Court in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 159
of 2023 considering the period of custody undergone by the said
accused.
12. As it is evident the appellant is in custody since
29.06.2018 i.e. six and a half years and such long incarceration
would be a predominant feature in granting bail to the appellant.
We, therefore, on the basis of what has been discussed above,
set aside the order dated 24.02.2024 passed in Misc. Criminal
Application No. 3184/2023, in connection with Special (NIA)
Case No. 03/2018, corresponding to R.C. Case No.
06/2018/NIA/DLI, arising out of Tandwa P.S. Case No. 02/2016
by Sri Madhuresh Kumar Verma, learned AJC-XVI-cum-Special
Judge, NIA, Ranchi and direct that the appellant be released on
bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten
Thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each, to the
satisfaction of learned AJC-XVI-cum-Special Judge, NIA, Ranchi
in connection with Special (NIA) Case No. 03/2018,
corresponding to R.C. Case No. 06/2018/NIA/DLI, arising out of
-6-
Tandwa P.S. Case No. 02/2016, subject to the condition that the
appellant shall remain physically present before the learned trial
court on each and every date till the conclusion of the trial.
13. This appeal is allowed.
14. Pending I.A.s., if any, stands closed.
(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)
(Ambuj Nath, J.)
A. Sanga/-
-7-
