Division Bench of Jharkhand High Court affirms existing precedent on mandatory bail embargo under Section 43D(5) UA(P) Act in PLFI extortion‐terrorism context; binding on subordinate courts and persuasive for other High Courts.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | Cr.A(DB)/145/2025 of SHIV KUMAR SAHU Vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND |
| CNR | JHHC010024722025 |
| Date of Registration | 05-02-2025 |
| Decision Date | 26-08-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Dismissed |
| Judgment Author | RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J. |
| Concurring or Dissenting Judges | PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J. |
| Court | High Court of Jharkhand |
| Bench | Division Bench |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms statutory bail bar under Section 43D(5) UA(P) Act |
| Type of Law | Criminal law; Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act |
| Questions of Law | Whether Section 43D(5) UA(P) Act precludes grant of bail once a prima facie case of banned‐organisation conspiracy and extortion is made out. |
| Ratio Decidendi | The Division Bench held that once materials (disclosure memos, recoveries, digital evidence, bank statements, witness statements) establish prima facie involvement in a banned organisation’s extortion and terror conspiracy, the mandatory embargo under Section 43D(5) UA(P) Act applies. Absence of direct recovery from the appellant’s person does not negate the prima facie case. Trial court’s refusal of bail under the statutory bar was unassailable. |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities | Application of statutory bail embargo in Section 43D(5) UA(P) Act to prima facie findings of membership, conspiracy, extortion and terror activities—a non‐discretionary prohibition. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | PLFI cadres funded extortion from coal traders, contractors and businessmen; appellant named in second supplementary charge sheet (A-11) for forwarding threatening pamphlets, channelising funds to other accused; protected witnesses and digital/financial records implicate active role. |
| Citations |
|
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Jharkhand High Court’s jurisdiction |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts considering bail under UA(P) Act |
| Follows | Section 43D(5) UA(P) Act mandatory bail embargo precedent |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Confirms that active involvement in extortion/terror conspiracy by a banned group, once shown prima facie, triggers absolute bar under Section 43D(5) UA(P) Act—even if no incriminating article is recovered from the accused’s personal custody.
- Digital evidence (WhatsApp messages, banking records) and protected witness statements suffice to establish prima facie case for applying the statutory bail embargo.
- High Court will not interfere on merits where trial court correctly applies Section 43D(5) UA(P) Act without misreading or overlooking material.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court analysed disclosure memoranda of co-accused, recovery memos, extracts of digital devices, bank statements and statements of protected witnesses to establish appellant’s role in PLFI extortion and fund-channeling.
- It held that these materials constitute a prima facie case of membership and conspiracy under Sections 13, 17, 18, 18B and 20 UA(P) Act read with Section 120B IPC.
- Recognised the non-discretionary bail bar in Section 43D(5) UA(P) Act: “No bail if prima facie case established.”
- Found no error in trial court’s refusal of bail; declined to exercise inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to override statutory provision.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Appellant):
- Implication based solely on co-accused’s confession; no incriminating article recovered personally.
- Case is of conspiracy; no direct evidence against him to justify refusal of bail.
Respondents (State & NIA):
- Materials demonstrate appellant’s active membership in PLFI and his role in extortion, threat mails, and fund-transfers.
- Section 43D(5) UA(P) Act mandates bail refusal once prima facie involvement is established.
Factual Background
Shiv Kumar Sahu was arrested on 16.06.2024 in RC-04/2023/NIA/RNC under Sections 120B, 384 IPC and multiple UA(P) Act provisions. He was accused of being an active PLFI cadre who forwarded threatening pamphlets via WhatsApp, facilitated levy collections from businessmen, and channelled extortion funds to other accused. Bail application under Section 43D(5) UA(P) Act was rejected by the Special Judge (NIA), Ranchi, leading to this appeal.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 43D(5) UA(P) Act establishes a mandatory prohibition on bail where a prima facie case of unlawful activity, membership or support to a banned organisation is made out.
- The court reaffirmed the non-discretionary nature of this embargo and its application upon minimal prima facie satisfaction by investigation materials.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Affirmation of statutory bail embargo under Section 43D(5) UA(P) Act.
Citations
- (2025:JHHC:25345-DB)
- CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) NO. 145 OF 2025
- RC-04/2023/NIA/RNC
- Misc. Criminal Application No. 3122/2024