KALYAN RAI SURANA, MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA
Landhoni Devi, W/o. Jeeten Singh – Appellant
Versus
National Investigation Agency – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(K.R. Surana, J.)
| Sl. | Index | Paragraph |
| |
| 1. | Preliminaries | 1 to 3 |
| |
| 2. | List of abbreviations used | 4 |
| |
| 3. | Position of appellants during trial | 5 & 6 |
| |
| 4. | Facts of the case | 7 |
| |
| 5. | Submissions by senior counsel for the appellants in Crl.A.nos. 262/2016, 263/2016, 264/2016, 265/2016 &291/2016: | 8 |
| |
| 6. | (I) General Submissions: | 8 to 34 |
| |
| 7. | (II) Submissions in individual appeals |
|
| |
| 8. | (i) Submissions inCrl.A. 262/2016 - Sougaijam Rakesh Singh @ S. Rakesh Singh (A-6) | 35 to 47 |
| |
| 9. | (ii) Submissions in Crl.A. 263/ 2016 –Sinam Gune Singh @ S. Gune Singh (A-11) | 48 to 58 |
| |
| 10. | (iii) Submissions in Crl.A. 264/ 2016 –Oinam Maniton Singha (A-15) | 59 & 60 |
| |
| 11. | (iv) Submissions in Crl.A. 265/ 2016 –W. Noren Singh @ W. Noren Meetei (A-8) | 61 to 64 |
| |
| 12. | (v) Submissions in Crl.A. 291/ 2016 –Y. Brajabidhu Singh (A-24) | 65 to 73 |
| |
| 13. | Submissions by learned counsel for the appellants in other appeals. |
|
| |
|
| ||||
Central Bureau of Investigation v. V.C. Shukla
Kalpnath Rai v. State (through CBI)
NIA v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali
Periyasami v. State, represented by Inspector of Police, Q Branch, CID, Tiruchirappally, Tamil Nadu
Sardul Singh v. State of Haryana
Sarwan Singh v. State of Punjab
Shailendra Swarup v. Deputy Director
State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Subhas @ Pappu
T. Rajkumari v. The Govt. of Tamil Nadu
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the involvement of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt due to inadequate procedural adherence and unreliable evidence.
In view of Section 10 of the Evidence Act anything said, done or written by those who enlist their support to the object of conspiracy and those who join later or make their exit before completion of....
The court affirmed that association with a terrorist organization with intent to further its activities constitutes a punishable offense under the UA(P) Act.
Point of Law : Prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused persons by facilitating worthwhile evidence. [Para 236]
The court emphasized that in terrorism-related cases, the gravity of charges and evidence against the accused necessitate denial of bail under Section 43D(5) of the UA(P) Act.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.