SUMAN K SHRIVASTAVA
Ranchi, April 10: The Jharkhand High Court has refused bail to an accused in the 2021 Maoist IED blast in West Singhbhum, underlining the seriousness of the offence and the existence of a prima facie case based on investigation materials.
The case dates back to March 4, 2021, when security forces launched an anti-Naxal operation in the hilly Lanji area under Toklo police station after receiving intelligence about the movement of senior CPI (Maoist) leaders.
As teams of Jharkhand Jaguar and CRPF advanced through the forested terrain, a powerful IED blast was triggered from the hillside. The explosion left several jawans injured, and at least three security personnel were martyred. Some of the injured later succumbed during treatment, highlighting the scale and impact of the attack.
The National Investigation Agency (NIA), which later took over the probe, alleged that the accused, Jaiki Paradhi, played a key role in supplying explosive materials (potash) used to carry out the blast.
ALSO READ: Jharkhand Treasury Scam: CID move awaits approval
Court flags ‘direct and serious’ allegations
A division bench of Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Sanjay Prasad observed that there are direct and serious allegations against the accused, supported by material collected during the investigation. The court noted that the accused was allegedly involved in procuring and supplying explosives to Maoist cadres, which were later used in the deadly blast.
Invoking provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), the court said bail cannot be granted if the accusations appear prima facie true. It held that the threshold was clearly met in this case.
Delay in trial not sufficient ground
Rejecting the argument of prolonged custody since 2021, the court ruled that a delay in trial cannot be the sole ground for bail in cases involving serious offences affecting national security. It emphasised that individual liberty must be balanced with societal and national interest.
The bench also noted that the trial is progressing, with witnesses being examined and steps taken to expedite proceedings. It accepted the NIA’s concern that releasing the accused could lead to tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses.
With no new grounds presented and earlier bail pleas already rejected on merit, the court dismissed the appeal, reaffirming that the gravity of the allegation and available evidence outweighed the bail plea.