TPC terrorist accused of extorting contractors moves Supreme Court for bail

An operative of the unlawful organization Tritiya Prastuti Committee (TPC) has approached Supreme Court of India against a Jharkhand High Court order denying his plea for bail.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi has issued notice on the SLP returnable on October 27, 2025.

The Petitioner, one Dashrath Singh Bhokta was arrested in May 2020 and has been in custody since. As per the NIA's chargesheet, the Petitioner was a zonal commander of the TPC, involved in collection of levies across multiple districts, and that such extorted funds were routed to procure arms and support terrorist activities.

The prosecution has also alleged that proceeds of the extortion were used for purchase of land in the name of the accused petitioner's wife and a vehicle in the name protected by his wife. These are claimed to constitute “proceeds of terrorism”.

An application for regular bail was rejected by the Trial Court in July 2024 wherein it observed that based on the investigation, materials, and witness statements, a prima facie case was made out against the accused of having first been associated with CPI (Maoist) and thereafter joining the banned outfit TPC as a zonal commander. It was noted that he allegedly extorted levies from contractors and businessmen in several regions and routed the money to further unlawful and terrorist activities.

The Jharkhand High Court in the impugned order had noted that the allegations of the Petitioner being a trained armed cadre who later became a Zonal Commander of TPC, collecting levy from various areas, and using the funds to procure immovable and movable properties in the name of his wife, were sufficient to establish a prima facie belief of his involvement in unlawful activities. It further held that the materials were “good and sufficient on their face” to attract the bar to bail under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA.

Supreme Court has now been told that High Court, in rejecting the accused -petitioner’s bail application, committed several legal and factual errors and its finding that a prima facie case is made out under the UA(P) A is based on vague, uncorroborated, and unverified allegations contained in the second supplementary chargesheet.

"The Hon’ble High Court failed to scrutinise whether the material relied upon, largely consisting of statements of co-accused and protected witnesses, meets even the threshold of credibility required under National Investigation Agency v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali, (2019) 5 SCC 1, particularly when no recovery, financial trail, or documentary evidence has been produced to prima facie link the Petitioner to the alleged acts of terrorism. The claims that the Petitioner was a Zonal Commander, collected levy, and purchased properties as “proceeds of terrorism” remain entirely unsubstantiated by any concrete material, yet the Hon’ble High Court erroneously assumed these allegations as established for the purposes of Section 43D(5) of the UA(P) Act.", the top court has been told.

It has further been submitted that High Court's assertion of trial nearing completion is also patently contrary to record, as only 47 of 131 prosecution witnesses have been examined over several years, and no realistic timeline for completion has been offered. The “advanced stage” reasoning, therefore, is stated to be speculative and factually incorrect.

"the Hon’ble High Court’s reasoning that TPC is a proscribed organisation because it was notified by the State of Jharkhand under Section 3 of the UA(P) Act does not automatically validate the invocation of Chapter IV (terrorist activities) of the UA(P) Act by the Respondent – NIA, especially when TPC is not a notified terrorist organisation under the First Schedule to the UA(P) Act, and no act attributable to the Petitioner qualifies as a “terrorist act” under Section 15, UA(P) Act.", the petition adds.

It has thus been prayed that impugned order be set aside and regular bail be granted to the petitioner in the interest of justice, equity, and fair trial rights under Article 21 of the Constitution.

The petitioner was represented by AOR Balaji Srinivasan, Advocates Aakriti Priya, Kanishka Singh and Niranjan Kumar.

Case Title: DASHRATH SINGH BHOKTA @ DASHRATH GANJHU vs. UNION OF INDIA

Hearing Date: September 8, 2025

Bench: Justices Kant and Bagchi