Jharkhand High Court Denies Bail to Alleged Financier of Aman Sahu Gang, Says Evidence Reveals Deep Nexus With Terror Funding and Extortion Network
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 448 of 2025
By Navya Tiwari
In a significant order dealing with organised crime, terror financing, and the stringent bail restrictions under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, the High Court of Jharkhand refused to grant bail to an alleged associate of gangster Aman Sahu, holding that the materials collected during investigation disclosed a strong prima facie case involving channelisation of extortion money, illegal arms dealings, and use of shell companies for laundering criminal proceeds.
The order was passed on 1 December 2025 by a Division Bench comprising Justice Rongon Mukhopadhyay and Justice Ambuj Nath in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 448 of 2025, filed by Shankar Yadav against the Union of India through the National Investigation Agency.
The appeal challenged the order of the Special NIA Court, Ranchi, which had rejected the appellant’s prayer for bail in connection with a high-profile terror and extortion case arising out of the Balumath violence incident of December 2020.
The case traces its origins to a violent attack near Tetariakhad Colliery in Latehar district on 18 December 2020, when armed assailants allegedly set vehicles on fire, fired indiscriminately upon civilians and police personnel, and left behind threatening pamphlets directed at coal transporters and mining companies. During the incident, four trucks and a motorcycle were burnt, while several civilians sustained injuries. Investigators recovered explosive remnants, spent cartridges, and pamphlets allegedly linked to associates of gangster Pradeep Ganjhu.
Subsequent investigation revealed an alleged criminal conspiracy involving notorious gangster Aman Sahu, Sujit Sinha, Pradeep Ganjhu, and several associates accused of carrying out extortion and terror activities in Jharkhand’s coal belt. Owing to the gravity of the allegations, the Ministry of Home Affairs transferred the investigation to the National Investigation Agency, which re-registered the matter as RC-01/2021/NIA/RNC.
Before the High Court, counsel for the appellant argued that Shankar Yadav had been falsely implicated nearly four years after the incident despite not being named in the FIR or initial charge sheets. It was submitted that the appellant was a businessman running legitimate enterprises and that the ₹1.3 crore cash recovered from his residence represented business proceeds connected with real estate transactions and flat bookings. The defence further contended that the firearms recovered from his premises were licensed and that other co-accused persons had already secured bail from the High Court in related proceedings.
The NIA, however, strongly opposed the plea, describing the appellant as a crucial financial operative within Aman Sahu’s criminal network. According to the prosecution, searches conducted at the appellant’s premises in Bhagalpur led to recovery of huge amounts of unexplained cash, firearms, live ammunition, mobile phones, electronic devices, and documents allegedly exposing a large-scale money laundering and extortion racket.
The investigation, as detailed before the Court, allegedly revealed that the appellant had created and operated shell firms to circulate extorted funds under the guise of business transactions. The NIA claimed that one firm, M/s Kiran Enterprises, had been opened in the name of Akash Sahu—brother of gangster Aman Sahu—while another concern, Om Sai Trading and Construction Company, belonged to the appellant himself. Financial scrutiny allegedly showed repeated suspicious transactions between the two entities without corresponding legitimate commercial activity.
The Court also took note of allegations that the appellant had used extortion proceeds to invest in real estate projects, including “Maa Sharda Enclave Apartments” at Tupudana, Ranchi, later renamed “Savitri Shankar Enclave.” Investigators alleged that possession of the property had been taken through forged documents and that signatures used in certain agreements appeared fabricated.
Further incriminating material, according to the NIA, emerged from forensic analysis of mobile phones and electronic devices seized during the searches. Investigators claimed that chats, virtual numbers, voice recordings, and call records demonstrated close communication between the appellant and members of the Aman Sahu gang regarding procurement of arms, ammunition, and operational activities conducted from jail. The agency also alleged that the appellant had attempted to intimidate witnesses through conference calls made from prison.
After examining the supplementary charge-sheet and materials produced during investigation, the High Court observed that the allegations against the appellant were substantially different from those against co-accused persons who had previously been granted bail. The Bench held that the evidence collected by the NIA indicated a deep and active nexus between the appellant and the criminal syndicate.
The Court noted that although the appellant attempted to justify the large cash recovery through business records, the declared cash-in-hand in his income tax filings was grossly disproportionate to the ₹1.3 crore recovered from his residence. The judges also found that the bank transactions between firms linked to the appellant and Akash Sahu strengthened the prosecution’s suspicion that extortion funds were being disguised as legitimate business income.
Holding that a strong prima facie case existed, the Bench ruled that the statutory embargo under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA stood attracted. Under this provision, bail cannot ordinarily be granted if the Court finds reasonable grounds for believing that accusations against the accused are prima facie true.
The High Court consequently refused to interfere with the Special NIA Court’s order rejecting bail and dismissed the appeal, while observing that the trial was already progressing. The ruling once again highlights the stringent approach adopted by courts in cases involving allegations of terror financing, organised extortion networks, and unlawful activities prosecuted under the UAPA framework.
