Case at a Glance
Four police personnel were killed when a patrol party was fired upon at Lukuiya More, Chandwa, on 22 November 2019, in an attack the prosecution attributes to CPI (Maoist) cadres. The NIA took over the case and named the appellant as accused no. 7, alleging he was in a reconnaissance team that passed on information about police movements. The Special NIA Court at Ranchi refused him bail. A Division Bench of the Jharkhand High Court granted bail, noting that “admittedly, the appellant was not a member of the attacking party”, that he had been in custody since 4 November 2020, that co-accused with similar roles had been bailed, and that there was only a “remote possibility” of the trial ending soon.
According to the prosecution, at about 8 pm on 22 November 2019 cadres of CPI (Maoist) “fired indiscriminately at the police patrolling party” at Lukuiya More, Chandwa, killing four police personnel and looting their arms. Chandwa P.S. Case No. 158/2019 was registered on the statement of a Home Guard. On 22 June 2020 the Central Government directed the National Investigation Agency to take over, and the case was re-registered as RC No. 25/2020/NIA/DLI, with charges under the IPC, the Arms Act, the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and the Criminal Law Amendment Act.
The first supplementary chargesheet named 34 persons; the appellant was A-7. The NIA alleged that he had joined the organisation in 2013, attended conspiracy meetings in 2019, and was part of the reconnaissance or observing team, posted with a walkie-talkie to relay police movements. He has been in custody since 4 November 2020. By order dated 27 July 2026 the Additional Judicial Commissioner-XVI-cum-Special Judge, NIA, Ranchi rejected his bail plea in Special (NIA) Case No. 02/2020, and he appealed.
The Key Question Before the Court
Should an accused alleged to have passed on information, but not to have taken part in the firing, be granted bail after nearly six years in custody when the trial is far from over and co-accused with similar roles have been bailed?
Role, custody and parity
The appellant argued that he was not named in the FIR, was implicated on a co-accused’s confession, did not take part in the firing, had been in custody since 2020 and that co-accused Faguna Ganjhu had been bailed on similar allegations. The NIA described him as an active conspirator and commander whose information led to the incident, pointed to criminal antecedents, and said 19 of 89 witnesses had been examined and that his role differed from Faguna Ganjhu’s.
The Bench recorded that protected witnesses had identified the appellant as passing information, but that “admittedly, the appellant was not a member of the attacking party.” It relied on the High Court’s own bail orders for co-accused Faguna Ganjhu (Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 325 of 2026) and Baijnath Ganjhu (Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1132 of 2025). While noting his antecedents, the Court weighed his role, the long period of custody and the “remote possibility of the trial being concluded in the near future”, and held him entitled to bail.
What the Court Actually Held
- The appellant was not a member of the attacking party; his alleged role was passing information.
- His custody since 4 November 2020 and the slow pace of trial, with only 19 of 89 witnesses examined, weighed in his favour.
- He was entitled to parity with co-accused Faguna Ganjhu and Baijnath Ganjhu, who had been granted bail.
- The order dated 27 July 2026 was set aside and bail granted on a bond of ₹10,000 with two sureties of like amount, on condition that he appears before the trial court on every date unless prevented by sufficient cause.
Why This Judgment Matters
- It shows that, even in serious NIA prosecutions, the specific role attributed to an accused matters at the bail stage.
- It reflects the weight courts give to long pre-trial custody where trials are moving slowly.
- It applies parity among co-accused with comparable roles.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For the Accused and Families
- Bail may be possible in long-pending NIA cases where the accused’s role is limited and the trial is delayed.
- Orders granting bail to co-accused with similar roles are important to place before the court.
- Bail conditions, such as attending every hearing, must be strictly followed.
For Counsel
- Distinguish the client’s alleged role from that of the persons who actually carried out the attack.
- Place on record the number of witnesses examined against the total to show trial delay.
- Cite co-accused bail orders for parity, and address antecedents directly.
Key Takeaways
- Accused was not part of the attacking party.
- In custody since November 2020; only 19 of 89 witnesses examined.
- Parity with bailed co-accused applied.
- Bail on ₹10,000 bond with two sureties.
Frequently Asked Questions
Why did the High Court grant bail despite the seriousness of the case?
It weighed that the appellant was admittedly not in the attacking party, had been in custody since November 2020, that co-accused with similar roles had been bailed, and that the trial was unlikely to end soon.
Did the Court ignore his criminal antecedents?
No. The Court noted the antecedents but held that, considering his role, custody period and trial delay, bail was warranted.
What are the bail conditions?
A personal bond of ₹10,000 with two sureties of the same amount, and appearance before the trial court on every date unless prevented by sufficient cause.
Conclusion
Ramjit Nagesiya is a role-specific bail ruling in a serious NIA prosecution. It does not comment on guilt; it balances the allegation of passing information against nearly six years of custody, parity and the pace of trial.
Practical takeaway: In long-running NIA trials, a bail plea built on the accused’s specific role, the custody period, trial progress and parity can succeed even after rejection by the Special Court.
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com