BOMBAY HIGH COURT
A.S. Gadkari and Milind N. Jadhav, JJ.
Jyoti Jagtap – Appellant
versus
National Investigating
Agency and Anr. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No.289 of 2022
Decided on 17.10.2022
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 439 – Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 – Section 43-D(5) – Bail application – FIR registered by National Investigation Agency under Sections 120B, 115, 121, 121A, 124A, 153A, 505(1)(B) and 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 13,16,18,18A, 20, 38, 39 and 40 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 – Allegation of having link with members of terrorist organisation – Prima facie, there are reasonable grounds for believing that allegations / accusations against Appellant are true – Appellant’s role cannot be segregated or separated and it will have to be seen in light of charge of conspiracy of entire case put forth by NIA – Documents clearly highlight active role of Appellant in so far as organizing Elgar Parishad event but more importantly it is association of Appellant with prominent members of CPI(M) which is a designated terrorist organization which cannot be lost sight of – There are reasonable grounds for believing allegations / accusation of NIA against Appellant having conspired, attempted, advocated and abated commission of a terrorist act as prima facie true – No infirmity in order passed by Special Judge rejecting bail application of Appellant – Appeal dismissed. (Paras 8.1, 10, 11 and 12)
Result: Criminal Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Miliind N. Jadhav, J.—By this Appeal, filed under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (for short “NIA Act”), Appellant has challenged the Judgment and Order dated 14.02.2022 passed by the Special Judge, Greater Bombay (for short “Trial Court”) in NIA Special Case No.414 of 2020, rejecting the Appellant’s Bail Application.
2. Appellant is arraigned as accused No. 15 in FIR No.RC-01/2020/NIA/MUM registered by National Investigation Agency (for short “NIA”) under Sections 120B, 115, 121, 121A, 124A, 153A, 505(1)(B) and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “IPC”) and Sections 13,16,18,18A, 20, 38, 39 and 40 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (for short “UAP Act”).
3. Facts which emerge for consideration of the present Appeal, are as under:—
(i) On 31.12.2017, Bhima Koregaon Shaurya Din Prerana Abhiyan organised an event called ‘Elgaar Parishad’ in Shaniwar-wada, Pune. It was decided to celebrate 200th Anniversary of the historic battle of Bhima Koregaon on 01.01.2018 by more than 200-250 social organisations under the banner of ‘Bhima Koregaon Shaurya Din Prerana Abhiyan’ led by Hon’ble Justice (Retd.) P.B. Sawant and Hon’ble Justice (Retd.) B.G.Kolse Patil. On 01.01.2018, mobs bearing saffron flags attacked persons travelling to and returning from Shaniwarwada Pune; there was large scale violence and one youth lost his life.
(ii) A Zero(0) FIR was registered on 02.01.2018 at Pimpri Chinchwad Police Station, Pune by eye-witness Ms. Anita Salve under various provisions of Indian Penal Code, 1860, Arms Act,1959, Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 and Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Previsions 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 organisations against the attacks across Maharashtra State thereafter.
(iii) On 08.01.2018, first informant Mr. Tushar Damgude, registered FIR No. 4 of 2018 under the provisions of Sections 153-A, 505(1)(b), 117 read with 34 of IPC stating that, the Elgar Parishad event organised at Shaniwarwada, Pune on 31.12.2017 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. The speakers gave provocative speeches, their performances were provocative in nature and had the effect of disrupting columnal harmony. It is stated that the banned terrorist organisation CPI (Maoist) (for short “CPI(M)”) had an organisational role to play in the said programme. CPI(M) wanted to infiltrate, inculcate and permeate its ideology amongst the masses, mostly impoverished classes and misguide them towards violent uncontitutional activities. According to 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 31.12.2017, these very activists performed skit / stage plays at the ‘Elgar Parsihad’ event, as a direct result of which there were incidents of violence, arson, stone pelting and death of an innocent person near Bhima Koregaon, Pune on 01.01.2018.
(iv) Houses of Rona Wilson (Accused No. 2), Surendra Gadling (Accused No. 3), Sudhir Dhawale (Accused No.1), Harshali Potdar, Sagar Gorakhe (Accused No. 13), Deepak Dhengale, Ramesh Gaichor (Accused No. 14) and Appellant Jyoti Jagtap (Accused No. 15) were searched by the police. Articles and material seized during the search were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory, Pune. The analysis of seized electronics/digital articles confirmed that accused Surendra Gadling, Rona Wilson, Shoma Sen (Accused No. 4), Mahesh Raut (Accused No. 5), Comr
National Investigating Agency Vs. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali
Sudesh Kedia Vs. Union of India
Balwant Singh & Anr. Vs. State of Punjab
Bhagwan Swarup Lal Bishan Lal & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra
Lennart Schussler & Anr. Vs. The Director of Enforcement & Anr.
Extracts of Kehar Singh & Ors. Vs. State (Delhi Administration)
Extract of State Vs. Nalini & Ors.
Bail cannot be granted to active member of a terrorist organisation.
The court granted bail due to insufficient prima facie evidence against the Appellant and prolonged pre-trial detention exceeding three years.
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....
Secs.177 of Cr.P.C., provide as Every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed.
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 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 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....
Rejection of Bail – Dismissal of Appeal - Appellant was member and occupied an important position at the organizational level; actively involved in propagating the ideology of revolt against the elec....
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.