SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2020 Supreme(Jhk) 365

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
H.C. MISHRA, RAJESH KUMAR, JJ.
Birbal Ganjhu - Appellant
Versus
Union of India through National Investigation Agency - Respondent
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 104 of 2020
Decided on : 24-06-2020

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :M/s. R.S. Mazumdar, Sr. Advocate
For the Respondent: M/s.Rohit Ranjan Prasad, Spl. P.P. for N.I.A.

Headnote:

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 439 - Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 - Section 43-D(5) - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 414, 384, 386, 387 r/w Section 120-B read with Sections 25(1-B) (a), 26 & 35 of Arms Act, Section 17(1)(2) of Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1908 - Rejection of bail application - There is a clear bar in granting bail to accused if there are materials before Court for believing that accusation against accused is prima facie true - It would not be appropriate at this stage to deal with evidence found against appellant during investigation in detail - Materials brought on record by NIA show that at this stage it cannot be opined that accusations against appellant is not prima facie true - Appeal dismissed. (Paras 12, 14, 16 to 19)

JUDGMENT :

H.C. Mishra, J.

Heard learned senior counsel for the appellant and the learned Special P.P. of the Investigating Agency (in Short “NIA”).

2.This appeal, preferred under Section 21 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, is directed against the order dated 20.12.2019, passed by the learned Judicial Commissioner-cum-Special Judge, N.I.A, Ranchi, (herein after referred to as the ‘Designated Court’), in Misc. Cr. Application No.620 of 2019, Special (N.I.A) Case No.03 of 2018, R.C No.06/2018/NIA/DLI, arising out of Tandwa P.S Case No.02 of 2016, rejecting the regular bail application filed by the appellant Birbal Ganjhu, who has been made accused for the offences under Sections 414, 384, 386, 387 r/w Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 25(1-B) (a), 26 & 35 of the Arms Act, Section 17(1)(2) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1908, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘CLA Act’) and Sections 17, 18 & 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (hereinafter referred to as “UA(P) Act”).

3. The case was originally instituted for the offences under Sections 414, 384, 386, 387 & 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 25 (1-B) (a), 26 & 35 of the Arms Act and Section 17(1)(2) of the CLA Act, on the basis of a secret information received by the Police, regarding realization/extortion of levy by the banned unlawful association/terrorist gang Tritiya Prastuti Committee (for short ‘TPC’), in the coal region of Amarpali/Magadh Projects of Central Coalfield Ltd., (in short ‘CCL’) from the contractors, transporters, D.O. (Delivery Order) holders and coal traders. On such information, the house of one Binod Kumar Ganjhu was raided on 11.01.2016, from where, an amount of Rs.91,75,890/- and two mobile phones were recovered. The appellant Birbal Ganjhu and one Munesh Ganjhu were also found there in suspicious condition, and loaded Mouzer pistol was recovered from the appellant, whereas country made pistol and cartridges were recovered from Munesh Ganjhu. All the three were apprehended by the police, who confessed their proximity with the banned unlawful association/terrorist gang TPC. On the basis of the disclosure of Binod Ganjhu, the house of one Pradeep Ram was raided, from where also, Rs.57,57,710/- and four cell phones were recovered. Accordingly, Tandwa P.S Case No. 02 of 2016 was instituted for the offences under Sections 414, 384, 386, 387 & 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 25 (1-B) (a), 26 & 35 of the Arms Act and Section 17 (1) (2) of the CLA Act, and investigation was taken up. Subsequently, taking into consideration the gravity of the offence, the Central Government, by order dated 13.02,2018, directed the N.I.A. to take over the investigation of the case, and Sections 16, 17, 20 & 23 of the UA(P) Act were also added.

4. After investigation, the police submitted the charge-sheet in the case, making the appellant also an accused. During investigation, the nexus between the CCL officials, the other stake holders and the members of the banned unlawful association/terrorist gang TPC was revealed. After the arrest itself the appellant and the other arrested persons had confessed their proximity with TPC, and in course of investigation by the NIA also, the statements of the witnesses were recorded which show that the appellant was actively engaged in the activities of TPC. It was revealed during investigation that TPC operatives used to exhort levy from the coal contractors. The modus operandi of TPC was that they initially blocked the mining process in Amarpali and Magadh areas and then as a part of their plan of conspiracy, they formed the Village Committees with their own men to start the mining process. They imposed levy amount on coal transportation and initially, in a meeting with the TPC, it was decided that an amount @ Rs.254/- PMT of coal would be collected from each transporter and D.O. Holders in the name of the Village Committee and the said amount would be distributed amongst various stake holders

      Click Here to Read the rest of this document
      1
      2
      3
      4
      5
      6
      7
      8
      9
      10
      11
      SupremeToday Portrait Ad
      supreme today icon
      logo-black

      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

      qr

      Scan Me!

      India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

      For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

      whatsapp-icon Back to top