Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
M. GANGA RAO, T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO, JJ.
Pangi Naganna - Petitioner
Versus
The Union of India - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 253 of 2022
Decided On : 28-10-2022
CRIMINAL APPEAL - UNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT, 1967 - SECTION 43D(5) - BAIL - TERRORIST ORGANIZATION (CPI) MAOISTS - REASONABLE GROUNDS FOR BELIEVING ACCUSATION PRIMA FACIE TRUE - COURT ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION - NO DEFAULT BAIL - SERIOUS INCRIMINATING MATERIAL - APPELLANT'S ASSOCIATION WITH CPI (MOIST) AS COURIER AND JOURNALIST - PROPAGANDA OF AGENDA RELATING TO INSURGENCY OPERATION AGAINST STATE - DISMISSAL OF BAIL APPLICATION BY SPECIAL COURT - NO ILLEGALITY - APPEAL DISMISSED.
Fact of the Case:
Appellant, a member of the CPI (Maoist) terrorist organization, was arrested with revolutionary Maoist books and other material. He was charged under various sections of the IPC, Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, Andhra Pradesh Public Security Act, and Indian Arms Act. The appellant filed a bail application, which was dismissed by the Special Court.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that there were reasonable grounds to believe that the accusations against the appellant were prima facie true. The court found that the appellant was actively associated with the CPI (Maoist) against the security and interest of the Nation, and that he had committed offenses under Chapter IV/VI of the NIA Act. The court also found that the appellant was a courier for the CPI (Maoist) and used to go to forests to meet Maoist leaders. The court further found that the appellant was involved in the propaganda of agenda relating to the insurgency operation against the State.
Issues: 1. Whether the appellant was entitled to default bail under Section 43D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967? 2. Whether the Special Court erred in dismissing the appellant's bail application? 3. Whether there were reasonable grounds to believe that the accusations against the appellant were prima facie true?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the appellant was not entitled to default bail under Section 43D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, as the Special Court had extended the appellant's judicial custody from 90 days to 180 days. 2. The court held that the Special Court did not err in dismissing the appellant's bail application, as there were reasonable grounds to believe that the accusations against the appellant were prima facie true. 3. The court held that there were reasonable grounds to believe that the accusations against the appellant were prima facie true, as the appellant was actively associated with the CPI (Maoist) against the security and interest of the Nation, and that he had committed offenses under Chapter IV/VI of the NIA Act.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appellant's appeal.
JUDGMENT :
T. Mallikarjuna Rao, J.
1. This criminal appeal is filed under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (for short 'the Act) against the order dated 11.02.2022 in Crl. MP No.897 of 2021 in SC No.174 of 2021 (Rc. No.1/2021/NIA/Hyd) passed by the Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge for the trial of NIA Act cases, Vijayawada, whereby the prayer of the A.1/appellant to allow him to go on bail stands dismissed.
2. The case of the prosecution, as set forth in the charge sheet, states as under :
(b) The instant case basically relates to the activities of the accused persons as members of the terrorist organization (CPI). Maoists are sympathizers or members of various frontal organizations in order to support and further the activities of the proscribed terrorist organization, and an extensive investigation was conducted in the instant case.
(c) The appellant/A.1 was brought to the police station. A case in crime No.37 of 2020, Cr. No.48 of 2020 of Pedabayalu PS were registered for the offences punishable under Sections 120(b), 121(a), 143, 144, 124(A) r/w. 149 IPC, Sections 10, 13, 18 of UA (P) Act, Section 8(1)(ii) of APPS Act and Section 25 of IA of Arms Act. The Sub-Inspector of Police registered the case against A.2 to A.64 based on the said confessional statement of the appellant herein/A.1. During the investigation, Pangi Naganna, A.1/appellant herein, was taken to police custody for two days from 05.12.2020 to 06.12.2020, he disclosed the names of 19 more accused persons, who were involved in furthering and supporting the CPI Maoists. During the custodial interrogation by the State Police, Pangi Naganna revealed certain facts about the dump in the reserve forest area wherein various items meant for the Maoists were concealed in the white plastic bag and were recovered by the State Police under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act on 06.12.2020 from the place pointed out by Pangi Naganna. Apart from the Maoists literature, explosive material, i.e., 50 Nos. of electrical detonators, 13 Nos. of wire bundles and 25 Nos. of 7.62 MM live-rounds, were recovered.
(d) Based on the direction by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, vide Order No.11/01/18/2021/NIA, Dt. 05.03.2021 National Investigation Agency took up the investigation of Munchingaput Police Station, FIR No.47/2020, by registering the case as Rc. No.01/2021/NIA/Hyd at NIA Hyderabad on 07.03.2021 under different Sections 120B, 121, 121A, 143, 144, 124A r/w.149 IPC and Sections 10, 13 & 18 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, Sections 8(1) and 8(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Public Security Act and Section 25 of the Indian Arms Act and subsequently, the case records and properties were taken over by NIA on 16.03.2021.
(e) On 31.03.2021, based on a search warrant issued by the NIA Special Court, the NIA conducted searches at different locations of accused persons. However, the police custody of A.1/appellant herein was rejected by the NIA Special Court on the ground that A.1/appellant herein was already taken to police custody. Out of 84 accused persons involved in this case, 34 accused persons belonged to 12 frontal organizations. The statements of witnesses recorded during the course of the investigation disclose that Pangi Naganna, who is the appellant herein, was in contact with the underground Maoists and purchased items from the shops and provided them to Maoists and he was a courier for the Maoists leaders in the forest, used to bring medicines, footwear and other essential items and A.1 used to take people to the forest to meet A.2 who is an advisor and in charge of AOB area and controls
The court held that the Special Court did not err in dismissing the appellant's bail application, as there were reasonable grounds to believe that the accusations against the appellant were prima fac....
The court confirmed that under Section 43D(5) of UAPA, bail cannot be granted if there are reasonable grounds to believe the accusations are prima facie true.
The court upheld the denial of bail under UAPA, emphasizing the serious nature of the allegations and the prima facie case against the appellant, which posed a threat to national security.
The court established that involvement with a banned terrorist organization and the collection of levies for such groups constitutes serious offenses under the UA(P) Act, warranting denial of bail wh....
Bail – Being a member of banned organization is also an offence under UA(P) Act and bail can be declined.
The completion of investigation and prolonged judicial custody are significant factors in determining the entitlement to bail under UAPA. The court emphasized the mandatory requirements under Section....
The main legal point established is that the grant of bail under UAPA requires a prima facie view of the accused's involvement, balancing of various factors, and imposition of stringent conditions to....
The court established that under the UA(P) Act, particularly Section 43D(5), bail can be denied if there are reasonable grounds to believe the accusations against the accused are prima facie true, em....
The court ruled that, under UAPA, bail cannot be granted where prima facie evidence establishes serious allegations against national security, emphasizing the heightened standard for bail in terroris....
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.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
