IMPORTANT POINT
Grant of bail – Considerations for grant of bail and cancellation of bails are different – Accused cannot be detained under guise of punishing him by presuming guilt.

1. Heard. Delay Condoned. Leave granted.

2. The Union of India is questioning the order dated 30.01.2023 whereunder the respondent has been directed to be enlarged on bail on terms and conditions stipulated thereunder by setting aside the order dated 18.11.2021 passed by the Special Judge, NIA, Ranchi.

3. The gist of the prosecution case is that on 22.11.2019, at about 8.00 PM, the patrolling party of Chandwa Police Station during their routine patrol had stopped at Lukuiya More where the banned terrorist organization CPI (Moist) had fired indiscriminately at them resulting in the death of four (4) police personnel. It is the further case of the prosecution that arms and ammunitions were also looted from martyred police personnel by raising slogans and thereafter the moist fled away. One of the home guards namely, Dinesh Ram, who escaped unhurt had rushed to Chandwa Police Station and lodged a complaint resulting in FIR No. 158 of 2019 being registered against 18 named and few unknown persons.

4. The Central Government directed the National Investigating Agency (for short ‘NIA’) to take up investigation and as such the FIR No. 158 of 2019 was re-registered as RC No. 25 of 2020 for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 302, 353 and 379 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) read with Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959, under Section 17 (i) and (ii) of Criminal Law (Amendment) Act and Section 10, 13, 17 and 18 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (for short ‘UAP Act’)

5. The NIA submitted the supplementary charge-sheet against 34 persons including the respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 120(B), 121, 121(A), 122, 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 353, 395, 396 and 427 of IPC and under Sections 10, 13, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 38, 39 and 40 of UAP Act and under Sections 25(1B)(a), 26, 27 and 35 of the Arms Act.

6. The first respondent being apprehended sought for being enlarged on bail by filing a regular bail application before the Special Judge, NIA, Ranchi. After hearing both the parties, the learned Special Judge rejected the bail application vide order dated 18.11.2021.

7. Being aggrieved by the rejection of the bail application, the respondent herein preferred a separate criminal appeal under Section 21 of NIA Act, 2008 before the High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi. The High Court by the impugned order dated 30.01.2023 allowed the appeal and ordered for the respondent herein for being enlarged on bail subject to conditions stipulated thereunder. Hence, this appeal is preferred by Union of India.

8. We have heard the arguments of Shri K.M. Nataraj, Additional Solicitor General of India appearing for the appellant and Shri Siddharth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent. It is the contention of Shri K.M. Nataraj, Additional Solicitor General of India, that the respondent was a key partner of a construction firm M/s Santosh Construction and was closely associated with Regional Commander of CPI-Maoist Ravindra Ganjhu (A-14) and provided financial as well as logistics support for the terrorist activities. It is further contended that respondent has been in conspiracy with the cadres of CPI (Moist) and he had been supporting them not only by giving financial aid to the proscribed terrorist organization but also by managing the terrorist fund through showing dubious entries and investments in his company/firm’s accounts. He has also submitted that the respondent is an active supporter and sympathizer of the proscribed terrorist organization and is directly connected to the incident which led to the killing of four (4) police personnel of the Jharkhand Police. Taking this Court to the materials on record, he contended that the search at the house of the respondent had yielded in recovering unaccounted cash amounting to Rs. 2.64 crores for which there was no plausible explanation.

9. He would contend that there are other three (3) cases registered against the respondent which would suffice to rej