The Jharkhand High Court has significantly clarified the limits of pre-trial detention under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, holding that mere association with a gang and reliance on uncorroborated confessional statements of co-accused cannot justify denial of bail when no direct evidence links the accused to the offence.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The appellant, Aman Srivastava, was implicated in a case involving the recovery of Rs. 49.83 lakh in unaccounted cash from a vehicle intercepted in Ranchi. The prosecution alleged that the cash was extortion money collected by a gang led by the appellant from local traders and contractors. The case was registered under Sections 385, 386, and 34 IPC and Sections 16, 17, 20, and 21 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.
Procedural History
- 20.07.2023: Raid conducted; cash and two mobile phones recovered from Scorpio vehicle; Ezaj Ansari and Minku Khan apprehended.
- 11.08.2023: Appellant taken into custody.
- 23.02.2024: Charges framed against appellant.
- 20.12.2025: Special Judge, CID/ATS, Ranchi rejected bail application.
- 09.03.2026: Jharkhand HC heard appeal against bail rejection.
Relief Sought
The appellant sought regular bail, arguing that he was not present at the scene, no material evidence tied him to the recovered cash, and his implication stemmed solely from the confessional statements of co-accused persons.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Section 43(D)(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act permits denial of bail solely on the basis of confessional statements of co-accused, without independent corroboration or direct evidence linking the accused to the offence.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
Mr. Jitendra S. Singh argued that the appellant’s involvement was speculative. No recovery, witness, or forensic evidence directly connected him to the cash or the conspiracy. The prosecution relied entirely on statements of apprehended co-accused who claimed to work for his gang, but none testified to receiving direct orders from him. He cited Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar to emphasize that criminal antecedents alone cannot override the presumption of innocence. The appellant had been in custody for over 19 months with trial still pending, and 10 of 13 witnesses remained to be examined.
For the Respondent
Mr. Vishwanath Roy contended that the appellant was named in the FIR and was the alleged head of a notorious extortion gang. He pointed to Paragraph 96 of the case diary listing 28 criminal antecedents and cited prior bail rejections of co-accused, including Firoz Khan, whose appeal was dismissed by the Supreme Court. He argued that Section 43(D)(5) imposes a high threshold for bail in UAP cases and that the nature of the offence - collecting funds for unlawful activities - justified continued detention.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the evidentiary foundation for the appellant’s implication. It noted that while the apprehended individuals - Ezaj Ansari and Minku Khan - were physically present at the scene and recovered with the cash, their statements did not indicate any direct interaction with the appellant. The prosecution’s case against the appellant rested on vague assertions in the case diary, particularly Paragraphs 9, 10, 11, 12, 23, 25, and 115, which merely recorded procedural details or the counting of cash by a bank official.
"None have stated about any interaction or directions received from the appellant and the name of the appellant has surfaced on vague and unsubstantiated assertions."
The Court distinguished this case from those of co-accused who were directly involved in the transportation or receipt of cash. It held that mere association with a gang, even if proven, does not equate to participation in the specific offence under Section 43(D)(5). The Court emphasized that confessional statements of co-accused are not substantive evidence unless corroborated by independent material, as held in State of Maharashtra v. Bharat Shantilal Shah. The prolonged custody of over 19 months, coupled with the absence of direct evidence, tipped the balance in favor of bail.
The Verdict
The appellant won. The Jharkhand HC set aside the bail rejection order and granted bail on a bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties. The Court held that denial of bail under UAP Act cannot rest on uncorroborated confessions and that prolonged pre-trial detention without direct evidence violates Article 21.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Confessions Alone Cannot Sustain Bail Denial
- Practitioners must challenge bail rejections under UAP Act where the prosecution relies exclusively on statements of co-accused.
- File applications citing Arnesh Kumar and Bharat Shantilal Shah to argue that confessions lack evidentiary value without corroboration.
- Highlight the absence of recovery, forensic, or eyewitness evidence linking the accused to the specific act.
Custody Duration Triggers Judicial Scrutiny
- If trial is delayed beyond 18 months and no direct evidence exists, courts must weigh Article 21 rights against Section 43(D)(5) restrictions.
- Use this judgment to argue for bail in cases where charges are framed but trial is stagnant.
- Submit affidavits detailing the number of witnesses examined versus remaining to demonstrate trial delay.
Association ≠ Participation
- Distinguish between leadership of a group and active participation in a specific offence.
- Argue that UAP Act provisions require proof of direct involvement in unlawful activity, not mere organizational affiliation.
- Cite this judgment to oppose blanket bail denials in gang-related cases where the accused was not present at the scene.
