Patna High Court
Rohit Rai @ Prakash @ ManojversusUnion of India Through Director General N I A
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
Holding
The High Court set aside the order denying bail and directed the release of the appellant on bail, finding insufficient prima facie evidence and undue pre‑trial detention.
Summary
The appellant, Rohit Rai, was arrested on 7 August 2023 with a firearm and alleged Maoist connections, and the NIA Special Judge denied his bail application in a case under the Arms Act and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. The appellant contended that the prosecution’s case lacked prima facie evidence, highlighted discrepancies in the recorded time of arrest, and argued that no witness had directly linked him to levy collection or the alleged organization. He also pointed out the extensive delay in trial, with only eight of the projected 80 witnesses examined, and cited his right to life under Article 21. The NIA argued that the appellant’s association with other accused established his involvement. The Patna High Court, after evaluating the material, found the evidence insufficient, noted the prolonged pre‑trial detention, and held that continued incarceration would violate the appellant’s constitutional rights. Consequently, the court set aside the lower court’s order and granted bail on a bond of Rs.25,000 with two sureties, subject to conditions under Section 480(3) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
Issues considered
- Whether the appellant is entitled to bail under the Arms Act and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act given the alleged facts.
- Whether the prosecution has established a prima facie case linking the appellant to levy collection and Maoist activities.
- Whether the prolonged pre‑trial detention violates the appellant’s right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution.
- Whether the discrepancies in the arrest time and lack of independent witness testimony affect the bail decision.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 25(1-b)a, 26, 35
- Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita — s. 480(3)
- Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act — s. 13, 16, 18, 20
Subjects
- bail
- Arms Act
- Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act
- NIA
- right to life
- pre‑trial detention
- Maoist
- evidence
- trial delay
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.661 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-27 Year-2023 Thana- NIA District- Patna
======================================================
Rohit Rai @ Prakash @ Manoj, S/o- Prakash Narayan Rai @ Baccha Rai, at
present R/o Village- Bagahi Kumbhapur P.S.- Saiyyad Raja, Chandauli, Dist-
Chandauli, U.P permanent R/O Village-Bithvar P.O.- Manihari, P.S.-
Bhabhua, Dist- Kaimur.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
Union of India Through Director General N I A Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Alok Kumar, Sr. Advocate
Mr.Raghwendra Pratap Singh, Advocate
Ms. Tanya Kumari, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr.(Dr.) Krishna Nandan Singh, Sr. Adv. (A.S.G)
Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh, Spl.P.P., NIA
Mr. Shivaditya Dhari Sinha, Advocate
Mr. Abhinav, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RITESH KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD)
6 09-01-2026 Heard Mr. Alok Kumar, learned senior counsel for the
appellant and Mr. (Dr.) K. N. Singh, learned A.S.G. for the NIA
assisted by Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh, Advocate.
2. This appeal has been preferred for setting aside the
impugned order dated 04.04.2025 by which the learned Special
Judge, NIA, Patna has rejected the appellant’s prayer for bail in
connection with Special Case No.10 of 2023 arising out of NIA
P.S. RC No.27/2023/NIA/DLI dated 26.09.2023 registered for
the offences punishable under Sections 25(1-b)a, 26 and 35 of
the Arms Act and Sections 13, 16, 18 and 20 of the Unlawful
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.661 of 2025(6) dt.09-01-2026
2/7
Activities (Prevention) Act (in short ‘UA(P)’ Act).
3. The prosecution case is based on a written report of
one Kamlesh Paswan, the officer in-charge of Goh police
station, Aurangabad recorded on 07.08.2023 at about 12.15 hrs.
In his written report, the officer in-charge, Goh police station
has recorded that on 07.08.2023 at about 12.15 hrs on a secret
information that two Maoists, who were riding on a red colour
motorcycle, were planning to commit some crime near the
village Dehuri canal, he reached there and saw that two persons
were coming on a motorcycle. On seeing the police personnel,
the motorcycle rider attempted to escape by turning the
motorcycle but on chase both the persons were apprehended and
disclosed their names as Rohit Rai @ Prakash (the appellant)
and Pramod Yadav. On search from the possession of appellant,
a firearm having six rounds capacity of firing with three live
cartridges were recovered. It is alleged that from the possession
of the appellant, certain articles/pamphlets and diary were also
recovered which would indicate that he was a member of the
prescribed organization, namely, CPI (Maoist) and was engaged
in collection of levy to strengthen the financial condition of the
organization.
4. It appears that in this case, the appellant is said to
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.661 of 2025(6) dt.09-01-2026
3/7
have been arrested on 07.08.2023 at 12.15 hrs and from his
possession one pistol and three live cartridges with some
documents allegedly showing his connection with CPI (Maoist),
Magadh Zone have been recovered.
5. Learned senior counsel for the appellant has drawn
the attention of this Court towards disclosure statement said to
have been recorded by the NIA (D-22) present at Annexure-P/3.
The attention of this Court has been drawn towards the fact that
even as this disclosure statement has not been signed by the
appellant but it bears the signature of the two witnesses and
three NIA personnel. According to this statement, the appellant
was arrested by police on 07.08.2023 at 9.00 PM. It is submitted
that in view of the said disclosure statement on which the NIA
has placed reliance by enclosing it with the charge-sheet, the
time of arrest of the appellant and the date and time of
recording of the FIR would become doubtful.
6. Learned senior counsel submits that from the entire
materials, which have been collected by the NIA, it is not shown
that this appellant had ever demanded any Rangdari/Levy from
any person. There is no witness at all to say that this appellant
had ever approached him for demand of levy. It is also
submitted that the NIA has brought one printing press owner as
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.661 of 2025(6) dt.09-01-2026
4/7
a witness in this case who has alleged that this appellant was
one of the persons who had approached him for printing of the
levy receipts which he had denied.
7. It is submitted that the modus operandi of
implicating the appellant through this witness may be seen from
the fact that no TIP was conducted even as the appellant was in
custody of the NIA in jail, his photograph was shown to the
witness and then the witness stated that this appellant was one
of the persons who had approached him for printing of the
receipt.
8. Learned senior counsel further submits that in this
case even as the appellant has been made accused in two other
cases, it would appear that one of the cases was registered only
one week before the present case and the another one was
recorded on the very next day. In both the cases, the appellant
has been granted bail as no sufficient materials could be brought
before the Court to even prima-facie show the involvement of
the appellant.
9. Learned senior counsel has further pointed out that
the levy receipts which are said to have been found in
possession of the appellant did not bear any receipt in the
handwriting of the appellant and there is no such material
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.661 of 2025(6) dt.09-01-2026
5/7
collected in course of investigation. In these circumstances,
there being no prima-facie material on the records, the
continued incarceration of the appellant is an infringement of
his right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
10. To strengthen his submissions, learned senior
counsel submits that in this case altogether 113 witnesses are to
be examined by the NIA and till date only eight witnesses have
been examined even as the appellant is in jail since 07.08.2023.
Thus, there is no chance of conclusion of trial in next few years.
11. The appeal has been contested by learned ASG
representing the NIA. It is submitted that in course of
investigation the witnesses have stated that this appellant was
one amongst the persons who were seen with other accused
persons of this case and he was engaged in strengthening the
organization of CPI (Maoist) in the area.
12. Learned ASG has further submitted that the NIA is
intending to prune the number of witnesses in this case and it is
likely to be brought down to 80 witnesses. It has already been
brought down to 80 witnesses and they are further thinking to
prune it down.
13. Learned ASG submits that since this appellant has
been found associated with the other accused persons, his
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.661 of 2025(6) dt.09-01-2026
6/7
connection with the Maoist organization has been established.
14. Having heard learned senior counsel for the
appellant and learned ASG for the NIA as also on perusal of the
records placed before this Court, we have noticed at this stage
that so far as this appellant is concerned, it is alleged that from
his possession one country made pistol with three live cartridges
and some incriminating documents are said to have been
recovered from his possession. In course of hearing even as we
called upon learned ASG to demonstrate that any independent
witness or protected witness in this case has taken name of this
appellant as one of the persons demanding the levy, no material
of that kind has been shown to us. It is not denied that the owner
of the printing press was shown the photograph of the accused
and on the basis of his identification from the photograph, it is
stated that this appellant was one amongst the persons who had
gone to the printing press for printing of the levy receipt, though
the printing press owner had not printed the same . It is not known
who had printed the levy receipt and further this Court has not
been shown any material showing that this appellant had written
or put his signature or gone to any person demanding the levy.
15. We find that in the circumstances, he has remained
in jail for about two years five months by now, only eight
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.661 of 2025(6) dt.09-01-2026
7/7
witnesses have been examined so far, as per present estimation
altogether 80 witnesses are to be examined, therefore, this trial
is not likely to be concluded in near future, the appellant has
already been granted bail in other two cases, in the
circumstances, we set aside the impugned order and direct
release of the appellant on bail on furnishing bail bonds of
Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties
of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Special
Judge, NIA, Patna in connection with Special Case No.10 of
2023 arising out of NIA P.S. RC No.27/2023/NIA/DLI, subject
to the conditions as laid down under Section 480 (3) of Bhartiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita and subject to further condition that
during the trial, the appellant shall present himself on the dates
fixed in the matter and, in case of two consecutive defaults in
putting appearance, his bail bond shall be cancelled by the
learned trial court.
16. This appeal is allowed.
(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J)
( Ritesh Kumar, J)
arvind/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.