The Jharkhand High Court has rejected the bail application of Naresh Ganjhu, who is alleged to be linked with the banned CPI (Maoist) group involved in a deadly police ambush that occurred in 2019.
A bench consisting of Justices Sujit Narayan Prasad and Sanjay Prasad evaluated Ganjhu’s bail request in connection with a terrorist incident that led to the deaths of four police officers.
The court emphasized on April 7 that while Article 21 of the Constitution acknowledges various aspects essential to the right to life and liberty—such as the right to a speedy trial and a fair investigation—it also necessitates caution when considering bail in cases that pose significant harm to society. This caution is rooted in legitimate concerns for public order and overall societal security.
The ruling noted that Ganjhu appears to be part of a conspiracy orchestrated by a terrorist organization, aimed at launching a violent attack against police forces, which resulted in the loss of four officers’ lives and the theft of government-issued firearms.
The National Investigation Agency (NIA) is investigating the case, which pertains to an ambush on a police patrol on November 22, 2019, near Lukuiya More. During this attack, members of the CPI (Maoist) indiscriminately fired at the patrol, killing four officers and fleeing with their weapons.
Ganjhu, identified as one of the suspects, was apprehended on January 2, 2020, for his alleged role in this conspiracy.
Representing Ganjhu, lawyer Birendra Kumar argued that his client has been wrongfully implicated in the case and has no connections to the terrorist organization. He claimed that Ganjhu is merely a scapegoat meant to alleviate investigative pressures.
Kumar further pointed out that the number of witnesses examined during the trial is limited, and their testimonies have not substantiated the prosecution’s claims against Ganjhu.
On behalf of the NIA, advocate A K Das countered that the petitioner’s assertion of lacking allegations against him is inaccurate. He cited substantial evidence suggesting Ganjhu’s collaboration with members of the extremist group, as detailed in the supplementary chargesheet.
Das argued that the severity of the allegations against Ganjhu is more pronounced than those against co-accused individuals Rajesh Ganjhu and Baijnath Ganjhu. He also stated that investigations revealed Ganjhu resided in Beerjangha village and acted as an overground contact for co-accused Ravindra Ganjhu, providing logistical assistance to CPI (Maoist) members who occasionally took refuge in the village.
The court order stressed that delays in the trial of serious offenses like this cannot serve as justification for granting bail.
While recognizing the rights under Article 21, the court noted that justice must balance individual liberties with the broader interests of society and national security. It underscored that although Article 21 rights are paramount, they cannot always take precedence over the collective safety of the community.
The court concluded by stating that protecting Article 21 rights is crucial, yet in circumstances that threaten societal and national security, prolonged detention cannot be the sole factor for granting bail.
