Back
JHARKHAND HIGH COURT
Sujit Narayan Prasad and Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, JJ.
Kunwar Ganjhu – Appellant
versus
Union of India through National Investigation Agency – Respondent
Cr. Appeal (DB) No.358 of 2023
Decided on 15.1.2024
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act,1967 – Section 45D(5) – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 439 – Rejection of prayer for regular bail – Case registered for offence under Sections 386, 411 and 120B of I.P.C., Section 17 of C.L.A. Act and Sections 13, 16, 17, 20, 21 and 23 of UAPA – It is bounden duty of Court to apply its mind to examine entire materials on record for the purpose of satisfying itself, whether a prima facie case is made out against accused or not – At stage of granting or non-granting of bail, Court is merely expected to record a finding on the basis of broad probabilities regarding the involvement of accused in commission of said offence or otherwise and elaborate examination or dissection of evidence is not required to be done at this stage – A person shall not be released on bail if court is of opinion that there are reasonable grounds for believing that accusations made are prima facie true apart from other offences appellant is accused of committing offences under Sections 17, 18 and 21 of the UA(P) Act, 1967 – Appellant is named accused – CPI (Maoist) is a proscribed terrorist organization and involved in many terrorist acts across the State – Despite having such knowledge, he continued to help terrorist organization and he acted in blatant contravention of laws and impaired safety and security of citizens and State – Being a member of banned organization is also an offence under UA(P) Act – Appellant is having criminal antecedents – Order impugned affirmed. (Paras 26, 29, 30, 31, 34, 43,
47, 53, 58, 61 and 62)
Result: Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.—The instant appeal preferred under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 is directed against the order dated 13.02.2023 passed by the AJC-XVI-cum-Spl. Judge, NIA, Ranchi in Misc. Cr. Application No.183 of 2023 [Special (NIA) Case No.03 of 2020], corresponding to R.C. No.38 of 2021/NIA/DLI, arising out of Chandwa P.S. Case No.04 of 2020 registered for the offence under Sections 386, 411 and 120B of the I.P.C., Section 17 of the C.L.A. Act and Sections 13, 16, 17, 20, 21 & 23 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, whereby and whereunder, the prayer for regular bail of the appellant has been rejected.
Facts
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case leading to this Criminal Appeal is that on 05.01.2020, Inspector cum SHO of Chandwa police station had received a reliable information that three persons came at Budhbazar, Chandwa by a motor-cycle bearing registration number JH 01 CW773 after collecting levy from a contractor and further proceeding to deliver the amount to Maoist Ravindra Ganjhu (A-4).
3. On receipt of the said information, the SHO along with his staff reached near Shiv Mandir, Budhbazar and noticed that 03 persons were going towards stadium by a motorcycle bearing registration number JH-01-CW773. It is alleged that after seeing the police party, all three persons tried to escape but they were chased and apprehended by the police and on enquiry, the persons revealed their names as Rajesh Kumar Ganjhu (A-2), Baijnath Ganjhu (A-1) and Kunwar Ganjhu (A-3) the appellant herein.
4. It is alleged that when search of the aforesaid persons was conducted in the presence of two independent witnesses, cash amounting to Rs. 05 (five) lakhs, a pair of new clothes, a letter of Maoist Ravindra Ganjhu (A-4) addressed to Sonu Singh (A-5) and other documents etc. were recovered from their possession.
5. It is further stated that during preliminary examination, these persons disclosed that, Ravindra Ganjhu (A-4) called them to meet at Beerjangha forest, gave a letter with direction to deliver it to contractor Sonu Singh (A-5) and collect money of Rs. 5 lakhs from Sonu Singh (A-5).
6. Accordingly, they went to Sonu Singh’s house, collected cash of Rs. 5 lakhs from Sonu Singh (A-5) by producing the letter of Maoist Ravindra Ganjhu (A-4) and delivered the cash to Maoist Ravindra Ganjhu (A-4) in the forest. They admitted that they are the couriers of terrorist organization CPI (Maoist) and involved in collection of levies and passing police information to Maoist cadres.
7. Accordingly, a case was registered as FIR No.04/2020 dated 05.01.2020 at PS Chandwa, District Latehar, Jharkhand under sections 386, 411, 120B of the Indian Penal Code(IPC), section 17 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act (CLA Act) and sections 13, 16, 17, 20, 21 and 23 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, (UA(P) Act) against Rajesh Kumar Ganjhu (A- 2), Baijnath Ganjhu (A-1), Kunwar Ganjhu (A-3), Ravindra Ganjhu (A-4) and Sonu Singh (A-5).
8. After investigation, the Jharkhand state police had filed charge- sheet vide Final Report No.59/2020 on 02.07.2020 under sections 386, 411 and 120B of the IPC, section 17 of the CL(A) Act and sections 13, 16, 17, 20, 21 and 23 of the UA(P), Act against 03 arrested accused (i) Rajesh Ganjhu (A-2), (ii) Baijnath Ganjhu (A-1) and (iii) Kunwar Ganjhu (A-3) and cognizance of the offence was taken on 16.07 2020. Further investigation of the case was continued by the state police against other absconding accused.
9. Later on, the Central Government had received information about registration of case being FIR No.04 2020 dated 05.01.2020 at PS Chandwa, District Latehar, Jharkhand under sections 386, 411, 120-B of the IPC, section 17 of the CL(A) Act and sections 13, 16, 17, 20, 21 and 23 of the UA(P) Act 1967 relating to arrest of 03 persons, namely, Rajesh Kumar Ganjhu (A-2), Baijnath Ganjhu (A-1) and the appellant herein, Kunwar Ganjhu (A-3) and seizure of cash Rs.5 Lak
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 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 a prima facie case under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act requires a lighter evidentiary burden, allowing for bail denial where reasonable grounds for believing acc....
The court upheld the denial of bail under the UAP Act, emphasizing the serious nature of the charges and the prima facie evidence against the appellant.
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....
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....
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
