Court Finds Sufficient Evidence of Appellant’s Involvement in Terror Activities, Denies Bail
In a significant judgment delivered on June 30, 2026, the Jharkhand High Court upheld the rejection of a bail application filed by Pankaj Karmali, an accused involved in a terror attack at Tetariakhad Colliery. The Division Bench, comprising Justices Rongon Mukhopadhyay and Arun Kumar Rai, found substantial evidence establishing Karmali’s presence at the crime scene, corroborated by protected witnesses and photographic identification.
The case, investigated by the National Investigation Agency (NIA), revolves around a terror incident on December 18, 2020, where miscreants engaged in indiscriminate firing and arson, injuring civilians and damaging property. The attack, allegedly orchestrated by a gang led by gangster Sujit Sinha and Aman Sahu in collaboration with Pradeep Ganjhu, aimed to disrupt government work and extort coal companies and transporters.
The appellant’s counsel, Mrs. Saumya Pandey, argued that Karmali was implicated based on co-accused confessions, noting that several co-accused had been granted bail previously. However, the court emphasized that Karmali’s involvement in prior criminal activities and the gravity of charges warranted bail denial.
The prosecution, represented by Mr. Amit Kumar Das, highlighted the appellant's role in executing the terror plan at Tetariakhad Colliery, resulting in casualties and property destruction. Witnesses identified Karmali and others as part of the group responsible for firing and arson during the attack.
The court scrutinized the Second Supplementary Charge Sheet, detailing Karmali’s criminal history and association with banned organizations. His involvement in past criminal acts, including kidnapping for ransom, further solidified the court's stance against bail.
Despite the defense’s plea concerning the prolonged custody and delayed trial, the judges underscored the seriousness of charges under various sections of the IPC, Explosive Substances Act, and Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. The evidence presented affirmed Karmali’s culpability, aligning with the trial court’s decision to reject bail.
The judgment reflects the court’s commitment to addressing terror-related offenses with stringent scrutiny, ensuring accused individuals with evident involvement face appropriate legal consequences. The decision marks a pivotal moment in the legal proceedings surrounding the Tetariakhad terror incident, reinforcing the judiciary's role in safeguarding public security against criminal conspiracies.
Bottom line:-
Bail application of an accused in a terror incident involving conspiracy, extortion, and indiscriminate firing rejected. Presence of the accused at the crime scene established through identification by protected witnesses and corroborative evidence.
Statutory provision(s):
- Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 439
- Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, Sections 10, 13, 16(1)(b), 20, 23
- Indian Penal Code, Sections 147, 148, 149, 353, 504, 506, 307, 427, 435, 386, 387, 120-B, 121-A, 216
- Explosive Substances Act, Sections 3/4
- CLA Act, Section 17
This judgment underscores the judiciary’s vigilance in handling cases of national security and terror activities, setting a precedent for similar cases in the future.
