'Long Custody Not a Ground Under UAPA': Jharkhand HC Denies Bail to Alleged CPI (Maoist) Courier

The Jharkhand High Court on December 2, 2025, refused to grant bail to Kunwar Ganjhu, accused of acting as a courier and over-ground worker (OGW) for the banned CPI (Maoist), holding that there was “no fresh ground” to revisit a question already settled twice by the High Court and once by the Supreme Court.

The division bench of Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava dismissed his appeal, affirming the Special NIA Court’s order of 9 July 2025, rejecting regular bail.

The prosecution's case is that on 5 January 2020, Chandwa police in Latehar claimed to have received specific intelligence that three Maoist operatives would arrive at Budhbazar on a motorcycle to collect levy on behalf of Maoist commander Ravindra Ganjhu. Officers set up surveillance and intercepted the vehicle around 5 pm. The three men, namely Baijnath Ganjhu, Rajesh Ganjhu, and the present appellant, Kunwar Ganjhu, were apprehended after allegedly trying to flee. According to police, a cash amount of Rs. 5 lakh and a handwritten Maoist letter addressed to a contractor, Sonu Singh, demanding levy, were recovered during the seizure.

The state police initially filed a chargesheet in July 2020, but the Union Home Ministry transferred the case to the National Investigation Agency, which re-registered it in November 2020. Since then, Kunwar Ganjhu has made multiple efforts to secure bail.

His pleas were rejected by the NIA Court in 2021 and again in 2023. The High Court rejected his first criminal appeal in January 2024, and the Supreme Court dismissed his Special Leave Petition in May 2024. The present appeal again challenged the Special Court’s refusal to extend him bail.

Before the bench, counsel for Kunwar Ganjhu argued that he had remained in custody since 6 January 2020, the trial had barely progressed, and the prolonged incarceration violates Article 21. Although the charges had been framed, more than 160 witnesses were cited, and at the time the Special Court rejected bail, none had been examined.

The counsel argued that Kunwar Ganjhu's implication was based mainly on suspicion because he is the elder brother of Maoist commander Ravindra Ganjhu, while no substantive material linked him to Maoist activities.

The NIA, however, pressed that the material on record consistently pointed to the appellant’s role as courier, informer and logistics handler for the banned Maoist organisation.

In its counter-affidavit, the agency referred to call-detail records showing frequent communication with co-accused; a route-pointing exercise where the appellant allegedly identified the path taken to collect levy; and the positive identification by Sonu Singh, who, the NIA said, handed over the Rs. 5 lakh extortion money to the trio.

The agency also highlighted older instances of 2012 and 2014, where the appellant allegedly delivered funds at the behest of his Maoist-linked brother, and the purchase of land in Lohardaga that investigators claim was funded through terror proceeds. Protected witnesses, it added, placed him with Maoist cadres shortly before the Lukuiya More ambush that resulted in the killing of four policemen.

The High Court noted that it had already examined these materials in detail last year while rejecting the appellant’s earlier appeal, and the Supreme Court had declined to interfere.

Under Section 43D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, the bench said, bail cannot be granted if the accusations appear prima facie true on the basis of the case diary or charge sheet.

Relying on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Watali and Gurwinder Singh, the bench reiterated that the usual principle that “bail is the rule” does not apply to UAPA cases, and long incarceration or delayed trial cannot be treated as independent grounds for release when the statutory bar is triggered.

"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," court reiterated.

The NIA informed the court that the trial has finally progressed, charges have been framed, and several prosecution witnesses have now been examined.

Given that no change in circumstances was shown, the High Court said it would not reopen issues already adjudicated on merit. It therefore upheld the Special Court’s view that the accusations against the appellant continue to meet the “prima facie true” threshold under UAPA, and dismissed the appeal.

Case Title: Kunwar Ganjhu vs. National Investigating Agency

Order Date: December 2, 2025

Bench: Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava