Jailed for 8 years without single witness: Why Jharkhand High Court overturned order to grant ‘Maoist facilitator’ bail

Allegation of purchasing arms and ammunition

• The case originated from an investigation into Maoist activities in the Rud Forest in 2017.
• According to the prosecution, Sao was a supporter of Sudhakaran, a central committee member of the
• CPI(Maoist), and was involved in purchasing arms, ammunition, and explosive materials for the group.
• He was arrested on September 1, 2017, following the recovery of 13 live rounds of ammunition and Maoist literature based on his disclosure statement.
• The National Investigating Agency (NIA) took over the investigation in 2021, re-registering the case under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the Arms Act, the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), and the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act.
• The NIA alleged that Sao had been a facilitator for top Maoist operatives since 1999, providing logistics, collecting levies, and harboring active cadres.

Prabhu Prasad Sao’s case

• Appearing for the Maoist leader Sao, advocate Indrajit Sinha argued that despite the gravity of the charges, Sao had been in custody since his arrest in 2017.
• He highlighted that while the NIA listed 84 witnesses (later pruned to 51), not a single witness has been examined to date.
• He further noted that charges were only framed on September 24, 2025, more than eight years after the initial arrest, suggesting that the delay was attributable to the prosecuting agency.

State’s stand

• The Special Public Prosecutor for the NIA, Amit Kumar Das, vehemently opposed the bail and argued that Sao’s release would pose a threat to protected witnesses and that the gravity of the offenses outweighed the length of incarceration.

Findings

• What speaks out in the present case is of the long incarceration of the appellant, which has been since September 2017, i.e., almost eight and a half years, and not a single witness has been examined by the prosecution.
• As per Das, Special Public Prosecutor for the NIA, the list of 84 witnesses as submitted by the NIA has been pruned down to 51 witnesses, but such pruning down cannot be concluded to presume that the trial would be completed anytime soon.

• In view of the nature of allegations levelled against the appellant, his period of incarceration has been since September 1, 2017, and that not a single witness has been examined by the prosecution which furthermore reflects, considering that 51 witnesses are to be examined, that the trial is not likely to be concluded in the near future, we are inclined to allow this appeal.