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.

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 three AK-47 weapons and arrest of two persons, who were involved in supply of AK-47 weapons to Maoists and other criminals in various States from Army Armoury, Jabalpur (MP). Accordingly, the case has been registered as RC/31/2017/NIA/DLI dated 05.10.2018.

2.2. It is evident from the format of the FIR that altogether 26 persons were named in the category of accused. The appellant is shown as accused No. XII in the FIR.

2.3. It is the case of the appellant that he is in custody since last approximately six years and, therefore, he filed application for grant of regular bail in Special Case No. 08 of 2018, arising out of R.C. No. 31 of 2018, before the learned Special Judge, NIA, Patna, however, the learned Special Judge, by the impugned order dated 19.02.2024, rejected the said application and, therefore, the appellant has filed the present appeal.

3. Heard Mr. Thakur Manish Mohan, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh, learned Special P.P. for the respondent NIA.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant would mainly submit that though the appellant is named in the FIR as accused No. 12, the Investigation Agency has failed to collect any evidence connecting the appellant with the incident in question and in fact the appellant is son of accused Purushottam Lal Rajak, whose confessional statement was recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘the Code’) and, therefore, the appellant has been implicated. Learned counsel pointed out from the papers of the charge-sheet dated 05.03.2019 that the appellant is not named in the original charge-sheet, however, in paragraph 16.56 of the supplementary charge-sheet No.1, the appellant’s name has been referred. It is further submitted that in paragraph Nos. 16.38 to 16.41 of the supplementary charge-sheet dated 14.05.2019, the Investigation Agency has figured out details of the Bank Accounts of the appellant and pointed out that there are certain transactions which took place in the bank accounts of the appellant and it is alleged that the appellant has earned it from illegal sources and was proceeds of crime from arms smuggling. It is further contended that the appellant was a bright student and he did his MBA course and he was dealing in grocery business.

4.1. Learned counsel further submits that the only material collected by the respondent NIA against the appellant is that the appellant went to drop his parents to Katni Railway Station, Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh. Further, the respondent NIA has failed to bring any material evidence or CCTV footage either from Jabalpur Railway Station or Jamalpur Railway Station that the trolley bag was handed over to Md. Imran Alam and Md. Shamsher Alam by the father of the appellant.

4.2. Learned counsel, at this stage, submits