Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD, SHAILENDRA SINGH
Bhikhan Ganjhu @ Deepak Kumar S/o Bandhu Ganjhu – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD, J.
1. Heard Mr. Balaji Srinivasan, learned counsel assisted by Ms. Akriti Priya and Mr. Niranjan Kumar, learned counsel on behalf of the appellant and Mr. Arvind Kumar, learned Special PP for the National Investigating Agency (in short ‘NIA’).
2. By filing this appeal, the sole appellant has assailed the judgment dated 25.10.2024 passed by learned Special Judge, NIA at Patna (hereinafter referred to as learned trial court) in Special Case No. 02 of 2021 in connection with R.C. Case No. 05 of 2019. Learned trial court has been pleased to reject the prayer for regular bail of the appellant under Section 43 (D) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (in short ‘UA(P) Act’) read with Section 43 9 and 440 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short ‘Cr.P.C.’).
Brief Facts of the Case
3. It is alleged that the petitioner is Zonal Commander of Tritiya Prastuti Committee (hereinafter referred to as the ‘TPC’), terrorist gang which is a banned organization. In it’s third supplementary charge sheet filed by the NIA showing this appellant an absconder, the facts revealed in course of investigation which are the basis of filing the charge sheet are stated
Bail is denied in cases involving serious charges under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act due to the appellant's criminal antecedents and status as an absconder, despite claims of parity with ....
Bail under the U.A.P. Act requires prima facie assessment of allegations; long custody or parity with co-accused do not automatically justify release.
Under UA(P) Act Section 43D(5), bail denied if charge-sheet shows prima facie true accusations of terrorist gang involvement; custody/delay insufficient absent changed circumstances; parity only for ....
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 denial of bail based on serious allegations, abscondence, and the need for judicial discretion to maintain public order governs the principle of parity in bail applications.
The judgment underscores the principle that prolonged pre-trial detention without substantial evidence of involvement in terrorist activities can infringe upon constitutional rights, warranting the g....
In cases under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, bail may be denied if there is prima facie evidence of serious criminal involvement linked to national security threats.
The principle of parity in bail applications allows for equality among co-accused, emphasizing the right to a speedy trial and the unjust nature of prolonged incarceration without conviction.
Prolonged detention without trial can violate the right to a speedy trial, qualifying an accused for bail under Article 21, despite serious charges linking them to anti-national activities.
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
