IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
A.S. Gadkari, Shivkumar Dige, JJ.
Gautam P. Navlakha - Appellant
Versus
National Investigating Agency and ors. - Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 468 of 2023
Decided On : 19-12-2023
JUDGMENT :
A.S. Gadkari, J.
1. Appellant, Accused No.11, has preferred this Appeal under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (for short, ‘the NIA Act’ ) impugning the Order dated 6th April, 2023 passed below Bail Application Exh-648 in NIA Special Case No.414 of 2020. By the impugned Order, the learned Special Judge, Greater Mumbai (for short, ‘the trial Court’) has rejected the Application for bail of the Appellant.
2. Heard Dr. Yug Mohit Chaudhry, learned counsel for the Appellant, Mr. Devang Vyas, learned Additional Solicitor General of India for the Respondent No.1-NIA and Smt. Pai, P.P. for the Respondent No.2-State.
3. Appellant is Accused No.11 as per the charge-sheet submitted by Respondent No.1, National Investigation Agency (for short “NIA”) in FIR No.RC-01/2020/NIA/MUM registered by it under Sections 120-B, 115, 121, 121-A, 124-A, 505(1)(b) and Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “the IPC”) and under Sections 13, 16, 18, 20, 38 and 39 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (for short “UAP Act”).
4. Facts which emerged from record and necessary for adjudication of the present Appeal can be summarized as under:-
ii) A Zero(0) FIR was registered on 2nd January, 2018 at Pimpri Chinchwad Police Station, Pune by an eye-witness, Ms. Anita Salve, under various provisions of IPC, Arms Act, 1959, Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 and Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, (for short “SC & ST Act”) alleging involvement of Sambhaji Bhide, Milind Ekbote and their followers for the attack and violence. A State wide bandh was also called by several Dalit, OBC, Maratha and Muslim organizations against the attacks across Maharashtra State thereafter.
iii) On 8th January, 2018, first informant Mr. Tushar Damgude, registered FIR No.4 of 2018 under the provisions of Sections 153-A, 505(1)(b), 117 read with Section 34 of IPC stating that, the Elgar Parishad Program organized at Shaniwarwada, Pune on 31st December, 2017 was attended by him at around 2.00 p.m., wherein there were a few speakers, compere, singers and other performers who performed on stage. That, the speakers gave provocative speeches, their performances were provocative in nature and had the effect of disrupting communal harmony. It is stated that, banned terrorist organization Communist Party of India (Maoist) (for short “CPI(M)”) had an organizational role to play in arranging the said program. CPI(M) wanted to infiltrate, inculcate and permeate its ideology amongst the masses, mostly impoverished classes and misguide them towards violent unconstitutional activities. According to the complainant, Kabir Kala Manch's (for short “KKM”) Sudhir Dhawale, other members and activists had performed provocative street plays in different areas of Maharashtra earlier, made malice speeches and spread false history, made disputable statements and objectionable slogans inciting passion and hatred to disrupt communal harmony, sung songs and participated in road dramas. On 31st December, 2017, these very activists amongst others performed skit/stage plays at the 'Elgar Parsihad Program’. As a direct result of which, on 1st January, 2018 there were incidents of violence, arson, stone pelting and caused death of an innocent person near Bhima Koregaon, Pune.
iv) Houses of Sudhir Dhawale (Accused No.1), Ron
Angela Harish Sontakke Vs. State of Maharashtra
Hanumant, Son of Govind Nargundkar V/s. State of Madhya Pradesh
Lt. Col. Prasad Shrikant Purohit V/s. State of Maharashtra
National Investigation Agency V/s. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali
P. Gopalkrishnan Alias Dileep Vs. State of Kerala & Anr.
The court established that for bail applications under the UAP Act, the prosecution must provide reasonable grounds for believing the accusations are prima facie true, and that mere membership in a b....
Bail cannot be granted to active member of a terrorist organisation.
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.
Bail – Being a member of banned organization is also an offence under UA(P) Act and bail can be declined.
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....
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 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.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.