Jharkhand High Court Reaffirms Constitutional Liberty in UAPA Bail Proceedings
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 999 of 2019
By Rishika Sinha
In Ajit Kumar Thakur v. Union of India & Anr., the High Court of Jharkhand examined the limits of prolonged incarceration under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) while deciding a bail application filed by a former General Manager of Central Coalfields Limited (CCL). The case arose from allegations that members of the extremist outfit TPC were extorting levies from coal transporters and contractors operating in Jharkhand’s coal belt. The prosecution alleged that Ajit Kumar Thakur had facilitated meetings between TPC operatives, contractors, and local stakeholders, thereby aiding the collection and distribution of extortion money. The investigation was later transferred to the National Investigation Agency (NIA), which charged the appellant under various provisions of the UAPA.
Before the Court, the appellant argued that his actions were merely administrative and connected to maintaining the smooth functioning of mining operations in Naxal-affected areas. He further contended that no incriminating recovery had been made from him and that similarly placed co-accused had already been granted bail. The NIA, however, maintained that the appellant played a central role in the alleged extortion network and that the statutory bar under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA prevented the grant of bail.
The High Court ultimately allowed the appeal and granted bail to the appellant. While acknowledging the seriousness of the allegations, the Bench observed that there was no direct accusation linking the appellant to any terrorist act and that the evidence primarily suggested his role as a facilitator in operational coordination. The Court also gave considerable weight to the fact that the appellant had remained in custody since 2019 and that the trial, involving 185 witnesses, was unlikely to conclude in the near future. Relying upon precedents such as Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb and Sudesh Kedia v. Union of India, the Court reiterated that statutory restrictions under the UAPA cannot override the constitutional guarantee of personal liberty indefinitely. The judgment therefore stands as an important reaffirmation of the principle that prolonged detention without timely trial cannot become a substitute for punishment under anti-terror legislation.
