Back
2019 Supreme(Del) 1516
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Siddharth Mridul, Brijesh Sethi, JJ.
Ghulam Mohd. Bhat - Appellant
Versus
National Investigating Agency - Respondent
CRL.A. No. 1264 of 2018
Decided On : 02-08-2019
For the Appellant :Manu Sharma, Ridhima Mandhar, Advocates
For the Respondent:Amit Sharma, Special Public Prosecutor, Ahmed Zaid, Advocate
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 43D(5) of the UA(P) Act, which requires the court to find reasonable grounds for believing that the accusations are prima facie true, and the need for a lighter degree of satisfaction in such cases.
Headnote:
NIA Act - Bail Application - Sections 13, 17, 18, 20 of UA(P) Act - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the provisions of Section 43D(5) of the UA(P) Act, which bars the grant of bail if the court finds reasonable grounds for believing that the accusations are prima facie true. The court also referred to the decision in National Investigation Agency vs. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali, which emphasized the need for a lighter degree of satisfaction to opine that the accusation is prima facie true. The court highlighted the importance of recording a finding based on broad probabilities regarding the involvement of the accused in the commission of the stated offence.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the dismissal of a bail application under the NIA Act and the UA(P) Act. The appellant was accused of involvement in terror financing and was charged under various sections of the UA(P) Act. The co-accused had pleaded guilty, and the appellant's bail applications had been previously dismissed.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the provisions of Section 43D(5) of the UA(P) Act were applicable, and the accusations against the appellant were prima facie true based on the evidence presented. The court emphasized the need for a lighter degree of satisfaction to opine that the accusation is prima facie true.
Issues: The main issue was whether there were reasonable grounds for believing that the accusations against the appellant were prima facie true, thereby justifying the dismissal of the bail application.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the provisions of Section 43D(5) of the UA(P) Act, which required the court to find reasonable grounds for believing that the accusations were prima facie true. The court also emphasized the need for a lighter degree of satisfaction in such cases.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed as the court found no warrant to interfere with the impugned order dated 26.11.2018, which had dismissed the appellant's bail application.
JUDGMENT :
Siddharth Mridul, J.
1. The present appeal under Section 21(4) of the National Investigating Agency Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the NIA Act’) read with Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Cr.P.C.’) assails the order dated 26.11.2018 passed by the District & Sessions Judge, Special Judge (NIA), Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, in case arising out of RC- 06/2011/NIA/DLI, registered by the NIA under Sections 13,17,18 and 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, (hereinafter referred to as ‘UA(P) Act’), whereby the third bail application instituted on behalf of the appellant came to be dismissed.
2. The facts as are relevant for the adjudication of the present appeal are briefly encapsulated as follows:-
(a) It is the case of the prosecution that, in the month of December, 2010, the Delhi Police received an information that two cell phones bearing No.9560872567 and 923335000846 were being used for Hawala transactions.
(b) It is further the case of the prosecution that, case bearing FIR No.4/2011 was registered at Police Station-Special Cell, Lodhi Colony on 16.01.2011 under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the IPC’) read with Section 17 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the UA(P) Act’). Thereafter, the investigation was transferred to National Investigating Agency (hereinafter referred to as ‘NIA’) and it registered the case on 24.04.2011.
(c) The NIA submitted its charge sheet before the Special Court on 20.07.2011 indicting four persons, including the appellant herein.
(d) It is alleged in the charge sheet that, on the aforementioned information, certain phone numbers were put under surveillance and on the basis of the information collected from the surveillance, it came to light that, one Maqbool Pandit, who was a member of a banned outfit, was sending huge amounts of funds to the secessionists and terrorists based in Jammu and Kashmir via Delhi.
(e) It is further alleged that on 22.01.2011, on the basis of the reliable information, a joint team of the Delhi Police and Jammu and Kashmir Police, laid a trap at Bemina Bypass Chowk, Srinagar, to apprehend the accused persons with the illegal money.
(f) It is further alleged that, at around 10.30 a.m. a white Maruti Car bearing No.JK 09 2942 came from the Bypass road and stopped near the water tank, adjacent to a park. It is further alleged that two people namely, Ghulam Jeelani Liloo @ Salim @ Ghulam Jeelani Sofi (A-3) and Farooq Ahmed Dagga @ Rahi (A-4) stepped out of the car and waited.
(g) It is further alleged that, in the meanwhile the appellant, Ghulam Mohd. Bhat (A-1), came from the same side and started talking to them. It is further alleged that at that time the informer identified the above said three persons.
(h) It is further alleged that, the persons who had come in the car (A-3 and A-4) took out a red and yellow bag from the car, opened it and showed it to the person, who had come on foot i.e. Ghulam Mohd. Bhat, the appellant herein. The team members then approached the said three persons and apprehended them.
(i) It is further alleged that, from A-1, Rs.20 lakhs, cell phones bearing No.88039112274 and 9797720964 and a slip containing certain phone numbers were recovered. It is also alleged that, from the remaining two accused persons also certain recoveries were made. It is further alleged that, the appellant herein, was produced before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Srinagar and one day’s transit remand was granted to the Delhi Police.
(j) The case of the prosecution is that, the appellant while being apprehended, tried to flee from the spot and in the process, he received some injuries after which he was shifted to the hospital. That further, two seizure memos were allegedly prepared, with respect to the recoveries allegedly made from the appellant.
(k) Thereafter, the NIA also filed a suppleme
