Back
VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, RAMESH CHAND MALVIYA
Md. Irfan @ Md. Irfan Alam S/o Late Md. Basir @ Kalandar – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Vipul M. Pancholi, J.
Heard Mr. Rajnish Kumar Singh, learned Advocate for the appellant, Km. Shashi Bala Verma, learned A.P.P. for the Respondent-State, Dr. K.N. Singh, learned A.S.G. for the NIA assisted by learned Advocates Mr. Shivaditya Dhari, Mr. Paritosh Parimal and learned Spl.P.P., Mr. Arvind Kumar for the NIA.
2. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘NIA Act’) for release of the appellant on bail against the order dated 16.08.2023, passed by the learned Court of Special Judge, NIA, Patna, Bihar in NIA Special Case No. 08 of 2018 arising out of R.C. No. 31/2018/NIA – DLI dated 05.10.2018 under Sections 121, 379, 414, 120B & 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’), under Sections 25(1A), 25(1AA), 25(1B)(a), 26 & 35 of the Arms Act, under Section 39 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 ( hereinafter referred to as the ‘U.A. (P).A.’) in connection with Munger Muffasil Police Station Case No. 323 of 2018, Munger, Bihar dated 07.09.2018.
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that one Inspector Bindeshwari Yadav has lodged
The court upheld that a prima facie case against the accused under UAPA provisions justifies denial of bail, despite claims of trial delays.
The court upheld the rejection of bail, finding prima facie evidence of the appellant's involvement in arms smuggling under the UAPA, despite his claims of insufficient evidence.
The court reaffirmed that anticipatory bail is not maintainable under Section 43D(4) of the UAPA in cases involving serious charges of terrorism, emphasizing the need for custodial interrogation in s....
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 main legal point established in the judgment is the need to crosscheck the truthfulness of allegations, the relevance of confessional statements made by co-accused in different cases, and the con....
(1) Regular bail – Issue of national integrity is also to be taken care of so as to maintain balance.(2) Precedent – Ratio of judgment is to be applied on the basis of factual aspect involved in each....
Bail under UAPA is an exception; serious charges and prima facie evidence against the accused justify denial of bail.
Bail – When trial is not likely to be completed in few more years, Court can release appellant on bail.
The court affirmed that bail under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act requires prima facie evidence of guilt, emphasizing the severity of charges against the appellant and ongoing trial facts.
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
