Back
VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA
Shivendra Rajak @ Sheelendra Rajak @ Shailendra Rajak, S/o. Purushotam Lal Rajak – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(Vipul M. Pancholi, J.)
The appellant has filed the present appeal under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the NIA Act’) against the order dated 19.02.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge, N.I.A., Patna, in connection with Special Case No. 08 of 2018 arising out of R.C. Case No. 31 of 2018, whereby the concerned Special Court has rejected the application filed by the appellant for grant of bail.
2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present appeal are as under: -
2.1. The prosecution case, in brief, is that one Inspector Bindeswari Yadav has lodged a written report dated 05.10.2018 stating therein, inter alia, that the Central Government has received information regarding registration of F.I.R. No. 323 of 2018 dated 07.09.2018 at Mufassil Police Station in the district of Munger, Bihar, under Sections 121, 379, 414, 120B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), Sections 25(1A), 25(1AA), 25(1B)(a) of the Arms Act as well as under Section 26 and 35 of the Arms Act read with Section 39 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the UAPA’) relating to recovery of thre
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 upheld that a prima facie case against the accused under UAPA provisions justifies denial of bail, despite claims of trial delays.
Bail under UAPA requires proving allegations are prima facie true; substantial evidence against the accused justified the dismissal of bail application.
The court affirmed that continued detention is warranted due to the serious allegations of conspiracy to supply arms to terrorist organizations and the ongoing nature of the trial.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for a surface analysis of probative value of evidence at the stage of examining the question of granting bail, and the requirement for rea....
The court emphasized the importance of prima facie evidence, the right to a speedy trial, and the lack of incriminating material in the possession of the accused.
The court upheld that mere suspicion is insufficient for bail; substantial evidence indicating involvement in terrorist activities justifies denial of bail under UAPA.
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 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....
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
