Patna High Court
Rakesh KumarversusThe Union of India through the Director General, National Investigation Agency, C.G.O. Complex
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
Holding
The impugned order denying bail is set aside and the appellant is released on bail.
Summary
Rakesh Kumar, the son of a workshop owner whose garage was raided by the NIA, was arrested in 2021 under several anti‑terrorism and arms statutes. The prosecution alleged his involvement in manufacturing arms and explosives, but offered no direct evidence linking him to the seized items, no independent witness, no call‑detail records, and no money trail. He has been in judicial custody for nearly five years while the trial remains incomplete, with many prosecution witnesses yet to be examined. The NIA opposed bail, while the appellant’s counsel argued that the prolonged pre‑trial detention violated his Article 21 right to a speedy trial, citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh (2024). The Patna High Court held that the denial of bail was untenable, set aside the Special Judge’s order, and granted bail subject to standard conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether the appellant is entitled to bail despite the serious nature of the offences alleged.
- Whether the prosecution has established a prima facie case linking the appellant to the seized arms and explosives.
- Whether the prolonged pre‑trial detention infringes the appellant’s Article 21 right to speedy trial.
- Whether familial association with the alleged offender suffices to justify continued detention.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act, 1959 — s. 25(1-A), 25(1-AA), 25(1-B)(a), 26, 35
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 437(3)
- Criminal Law Amendment Act — s. 17
- Explosive Substances Act, 1908 — s. 4, 5, 6
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120B, 121A
- Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 — s. 13, 18, 20, 23, 38, 39
Subjects
- bail
- pre‑trial detention
- Article 21
- speedy trial
- NIA
- terrorism offences
- arms seizure
- familial connection
- evidence
- witness examination
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.965 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-11 Year-2021 Thana- NIA District- Patna
======================================================
Rakesh Kumar, S/o Parshuram Singh, R/o Gola Road, Gajadhar Chak, PS-
Danapur, Distt.- Patna (Harbin), Permanent R/o Village- Bistol, PS- Karona
OP, District- Jehanabad (Harbin), Presently in Judicial custody at Beur
Central Jail, Patna
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The Union of India through the Director General, National Investigation
Agency, C.G.O. Complex Lodhi Road, New Delhi
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Thakur Manish Mohan, Advocate
Mr. Amit Pandey, Advocate
Ms. Ashmita Sinha, Advocate
Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr.(Dr.) K.N. Singh, ASG
Mr. Arvind Kumar, Spl.P.P., NIA
Mr. Shivaditya Dhari Sinha, Advocate
Mr.Paritosh Parimal, Advocate
Mr. Aayushman, AC to ASG
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD
and
HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD)
8 24-03-2026 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and Dr. K.N.
Singh, learned ASG assisted by Mr. Arvind Kumar, Advocate
for the N.I.A.
2. The records have been placed before this Court to
consider the prayer of the sole appellant to set aside the
impugned order dated 01.07.2025 passed by the learned Special
Judge, NIA, Patna in Special Case No.07 of 2021 in connection
with RC-11/2021/NIA/DLI dated 17.06.2021, arising out of
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.965 of 2025(8) dt.24-03-2026
2/8
Karona OP Case No.246/2021 dated 31.03.2021 registered for
the offences under Sections 121A and 120B of the Indian Penal
Code, Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Explosive Substances Act,
1908, Sections 25(1-A), 25(1-AA), 25(1-B)(a) 26 and 35 of the
Arms Act, 1959, Sections 13, 18, 20, 23, 38 and 39 of the
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and Section 17 of
the Criminal Law Amendment Act whereby and whereunder the
learned Special Judge, NIA, Patna has been pleased to reject the
prayer for bail of the appellant.
3. This is the second attempt of the appellant to obtain
bail in connection with the present case. Earlier Cr.Appeal (DB)
No. 36 of 2023 filed before this Court for the identical relief
was disposed of vide judgment dated 06.09.2023 with a
direction to the learned Special Judge, NIA to conclude the trial
within a reasonable period.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that as
per the report received from the learned trial court, this Court
will find that presently evidence of 31 witnesses out of total 83
prosecution witnesses have been recorded. The learned
Presiding Judge had been transferred and the court was lying
vacant at the relevant time. It is submitted that in such
circumstance where the appellant has already remained in
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.965 of 2025(8) dt.24-03-2026
3/8
incarceration for almost five years since 31.03.2021 and the
prosecution is yet to examine at least 52 witnesses, it would be
appropriate for this Court to hear the present matter on its own
merit keeping in view these circumstances.
5. As per the prosecution story, as disclosed in the FIR
lodged by the NIA on 17.06.2021, on secret information, a raid
was conducted by the police party in the garage/workshop of
one Parshuram Singh (father of the appellant) from where huge
quantity of arms & ammunition, equipment used in
manufacturing of arms, explosives, communication equipment
and several incriminating documents related to CPI (Maoist)
were recovered.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that it
would be evident from the prosecution case and the seizure list
that a raid was conducted in the garage/workshop of Parshuram
Singh who is the father of the appellant and from the said
garage/workshop the investigating agency had seized certain
articles such as detonator, liver and parts of .303 rifle. So far as
the present appellant is concerned, there is no material showing
that this appellant was engaged in the workshop business where
the vehicles are washed in the workshop. The investigating
agency has not collected any evidence that in the said business
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.965 of 2025(8) dt.24-03-2026
4/8
of the workshop the appellant had any role.
7. The submission is that rather it is an admitted
position that this appellant was working as a salesman in an
electronic gazette showroom having a chain retail outlets in the
State of Bihar.
8. Learned counsel submits that in the whole
investigation no independent witness has come forward to say
that this appellant was ever seen in the company of the nexalite
Uday Ji @ Rajesh Kumar Sinha @ Shailesh Srivastava.
9. It is further submitted that the investigating agency
has come out with a case that this appellant was on talking term
with said Uday Ji @ Rajesh Kumar Sinha @ Shailesh Srivastava
but neither any call detail report (CDR) nor any voice recording
etc. has been collected by the investigating agency. In such
circumstance, even this allegation that the appellant was on
talking term with Uday Ji @ Rajesh Kumar Sinha @ Shailesh
Srivastava has no basis to stand. The investigating agency has
not found any money trail/transaction between the appellant and
the so-called Uday Ji @ Rajesh Kumar Sinha @ Shailesh
Srivastava.
10. In the aforementioned background, it is submitted
that the appellant has been arrested in this case only for the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.965 of 2025(8) dt.24-03-2026
5/8
reason that he happened to be one of the sons of Parshuram
Singh. The appellant has remained in incarceration for almost
five years and given the present situation, the examination of the
prosecution witnesses is likely to take more than couple of
years. Learned counsel has submitted that this would attract
application of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the
constitutional right of the appellant is required to be respected at
this stage when he has already suffered substantial period of
incarceration but there is no chance of conclusion of the trial in
near future.
11. Learned ASG representing the NIA has opposed
the prayer for bail of the appellant. It is submitted that this
appellant was helping his father in connection with the
manufacturing of the arms and ammunition. In course of
hearing, this Court called upon learned ASG to specifically
answer as to whether there is any independent witness with the
investigating agency who has claimed to have seen the appellant
in the company of the nexalite Uday Ji @ Rajesh Kumar Sinha
@ Shailesh Srivastava, the answer is that there is no
independent witness on this point.
12. This Court further called upon the learned ASG to
inform as to whether the NIA has collected any CDR or voice
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.965 of 2025(8) dt.24-03-2026
6/8
recording of the appellant and the said nexalite Uday Ji @
Rajesh Kumar Sinha @ Shailesh Srivastava with whom the
appellant is said to be on talking term, again there is no contest
that no such evidence has been brought on the record.
13. It is also not contested that the NIA has not found
any money trail/transaction between the nexalite Uday Ji @
Rajesh Kumar Sinha @ Shailesh Srivastava and this appellant.
14. Learned ASG submits, at this stage, that in fact the
NIA is likely to further prune the number of witnesses and he
has instruction to say that the number of witnesses on behalf of
the prosecution has been pruned and it has been brought down
to 52.
15. Having regard to the entire facts and
circumstances and the submissions noted hereinabove, we have
noticed that in this case the appellant happens to be the son of
Parshuram Singh whose garage was raided and from there
incriminating articles were seized, however, on behalf of the
NIA, nothing has been brought before this Court to demonstrate
that the appellant was connected with the workshop business of
his father, rather it is admitted that the appellant was working in
a retail outlet of electronic gazettes and there is no independent
witness claiming that he was seen in the company of the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.965 of 2025(8) dt.24-03-2026
7/8
nexalite Uday Ji @ Rajesh Kumar Sinha @ Shailesh Srivastava,
there is no recovery from his personal possession or from his
residence and no money trail/transaction has been found
involving the appellant, even regarding criminal antecedent, it is
stated that the appellant has no criminal antecedent, the
appellant has remained in incarceration for almost five years
and at this stage the trial is not likely to be concluded in next
couple of years, keeping in view the judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh Vs.
State of Maharashtra and Another, 2024 SCC online 1693,
we are of the considered opinion that the impugned order is
liable to be set aside.
16. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and
direct release of the appellant on bail on furnishing bail bond of
Rs.25,000/-(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) with two
sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned
Special Judge, NIA, Patna in Special Case No.07 of 2021 in
connection with RC-11/2021/NIA/DLI, arising out of Karona
OP Case No.246/2021, subject to the condition under Section
437 (3) Cr.P.C. and further condition that the appellant shall
remain present on the date fixed in the trial, two consecutive
defaults in putting appearance before the trial court without
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.965 of 2025(8) dt.24-03-2026
8/8
showing any cogent reason may invite action towards
cancellation of his bail bond by the learned trial court.
17. This appeal stands allowed to the extent indicated
hereinabove.
(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J)
(Soni Shrivastava, J)
arvind/-
U T
Checking your session…