Mere Delay in Trial Not Ground for Bail in Grave UAPA Offences: Jharkhand High Court Dismisses Bail Plea of Alleged Terror Conspirator in Tetariyakhad Attack

“Bail must be rejected as a rule if accusations under UAPA are prima facie true”— Jharkhand High Court upholding the rejection of bail under Section 43D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA). The court held that the charges against the appellant were prima facie true, and thus, the statutory bar under UAPA applied, despite the long duration of custody.

The court dismissed the appeal filed under Section 21(4) of the NIA Act, challenging the Special NIA Court’s denial of bail in connection with the 2020 Tetariyakhad Colliery terror attack case—an incident involving coordinated arson, indiscriminate firing, and extortion allegedly executed by a banned terror syndicate.

“Once Prima Facie Involvement Exists, Bail Must Be Rejected Under UAPA”: Court Emphasises Repeatedly

The judgment pivots on the application of Section 43D(5) of the UAPA, which restricts the grant of bail when the court finds reasonable grounds for believing the accusations to be “prima facie true.” The Court reiterated the principle laid down in National Investigation Agency v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali, (2019) 5 SCC 1, and reaffirmed by the Supreme Court recently in Gurwinder Singh v. State of Punjab, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 109, which clarified that “bail is the rule, jail the exception” does not apply to UAPA offences.

Refusing to extend relief to the appellant, the Bench observed:

“The exercise to be undertaken by the court at this stage of granting or refusing bail is markedly different from discussing merits. The court is merely expected to record a finding on the basis of broad probabilities regarding the involvement of the accused...”

Conspiracy and Attack at Tetariyakhad Colliery

The prosecution case arises from the Tetariyakhad Colliery attack on December 18, 2020, where armed assailants allegedly set fire to four trucks and a motorcycle, and injured civilians while firing indiscriminately at the scene and even at responding police units. Pamphlets threatening transporters and coal businesses were found at the site.

The investigation revealed that the attack was executed by members of a terror network allegedly led by Sujit Sinha and Aman Sahu, supported by local criminal elements, including the present appellant Babulal Turi, also known by aliases “Prabhat”, “Guruji”, “Avinash”, and “Shankar”.

Following the gravity of the incident, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) handed over the investigation to the National Investigation Agency, which re-registered the case as RC Case No. 01/2021/NIA-RNC. The appellant was arrested on February 7, 2021, prior to the NIA taking over.

Prima Facie Truth of Allegations under Section 43D(5), UAPA

The court, after exhaustively reviewing the charge sheet, protected witness statements, FSL reports, and the role attributed to the appellant, concluded that the allegations were prima facie true.

The FSL report indicated that a fired shell found at the crime scene was matched to a country-made pistol recovered from the appellant. Protected witnesses also identified the appellant as one of the armed perpetrators.

The Bench noted:

“The Court is not inclined to hold that the accusations are prima facie untrue. Rather, the evidence points to the appellant’s active involvement as a key conspirator and participant in the crime.”

Long Incarceration Not a Standalone Ground for Bail under UAPA

Rejecting the plea based on long custody (over four years), the Court held that Article 21 considerations, as laid down in Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb, were not applicable since the trial had already commenced, and witnesses were being examined.

“It cannot be said that there is a violation of Part III of the Constitution of India since the trial has already commenced, evidence is going on and two witnesses have already been examined.”

The court clarified that mere delay in trial in serious UAPA offences is not sufficient ground for bail, especially when the statutory conditions under Section 43D(5) are satisfied.

Parity With Co-accused Not Applicable Without Role-Specific Analysis

Addressing the argument of parity with co-accused Prabhat Kumar Yadav, who was granted bail, the Court distinguished the appellant’s case:

“The role of the present appellant has surfaced as main conspirator... Ajay Turi disclosed that on the direction of Pradip Ganjhu and his brother Babulal Turi, he wrote threatening pamphlets which were dropped during terrorist attack.”

Relying on Ramesh Bhavan Rathod v. Vishanbhai Makwana (2021) 6 SCC 230 and Tarun Kumar v. ED, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1486, the Court stressed that parity in bail cannot be applied mechanically, but must be based on role-specific analysis.

“Bail Must Be Rejected as a Rule Under UAPA if Accusation is Prima Facie True”: Reaffirmed

Refusing to accept that long custody, pending trial, or parity warranted bail in this case, the Court concluded:

“This is not a case where the allegation is prima facie untrue... The appellant has failed to show any change in circumstance or new ground.”

Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed, and the rejection of bail was upheld.

The Jharkhand High Court’s ruling underscores the rigorous threshold for bail under UAPA, where prima facie involvement is sufficient to bar bail. The Court’s meticulous reliance on statutory provisions, forensic reports, and Supreme Court jurisprudence such as Watali, Najeeb, and Gurwinder Singh, reflects the judiciary’s firm stance against terrorism-related offences, and the limited role of bail discretion under special anti-terror laws.

Date of Decision: 04 November 2025