The high burden on the accused to demonstrate that the accusation is not prima facie true under Section 43-D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.

JUDGMENT :

H.C. Mishra, J.

Heard learned senior counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the NIA.

2. This appeal, preferred under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, is directed against the order dated 25.11.2019, passed by the learned Judicial Commissioner-cum-Special Judge (NIA), Ranchi, (herein after referred to as the ‘NIA Court’), in Misc. Cr. Application No. 1081 of 2019, in connection with Special (NIA) Case No. 03 of 2018, RC-06/2018/NIA/DLI, arising out of Tandwa P.S. Case No. 2 of 2016, whereby the bail application of this appellant was rejected by the NIA Court.

3. The case was originally instituted for the offences under Sections 414, 384, 386, 387 and 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 secret information, received by the police, regarding realization / extortion of levy by the banned terrorist organization Tritya Prastuti Committee (for short ‘TPC’), in the coal region of Amrapali / Magadh Project of Central Coalfield Ltd., from the contractors, transporters, D.O. holders and coal traders. On such information, the house of one Binod Kumar Ganjhu was raided on 11.1.2016, from where, an amount of Rs. 91,75,890/-and two mobile phones were recovered. Two other persons, viz., Birbal Ganjhu and Munesh Ganjhu were also found there in suspicious condition, and loaded firearms and cartridges were recovered from them. All the three were apprehended by the police, who confessed their proximity with the banned terrorist organization TPC. On the basis of disclosure made by Binod Kumar Ganjhu, the house of the present appellant Pradeep Ram was raided, from where Rs. 57,57,710/-and four cell phones were recovered. Accordingly, Tandwa P.S. Case No. 2 of 2016 was instituted for the aforesaid offences and investigation was taken up. Subsequently, taking into consideration the gravity of the offence, the Central Government, by order dated 13.2.2018, directed the NIA to take over the investigation of the case, and Sections 16, 17, 20 and 23 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act were also added.

4. During investigation by the NIA, the modus operandi of TPC was found that they initially blocked the mining process in Amrapali / Magadh Project areas as a part of conspiracy, they formed the village committees with their own men for starting the process and they imposed levy on coal transportation and realized the levy which used to be distributed amongst the various stake holders.

5. Learned senior counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case and he has sufficient means, as he was engaged in a business of transportation. Learned senior counsel also submitted that considering this fact, the appellant was earlier granted bail by this Court, while the investigation was not taken up by the NIA. Subsequently when the NIA added the offences, under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, the appellant was again taken into custody and was remanded to judicial custody. It is submitted by learned senior counsel, that since he appellant was already on bail for the same occurrence / offence, he ought to have been enlarged on bail.

6. Learned senior counsel for the appellant has also submitted that the appellant is innocent and has not committed any offence. It is also submitted that the money recovered from the appellant was the amount relating to his business, the turn over which was more than rupees one crore, even on the date of his arrest. Learned senior counsel has accordingly, submitted that the appellant is entitled to the privilege of bail and impugned order, passed by the NIA Court cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.

7. Learned counsel for the NIA, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer and has drawn our attention towards the materials found during the investigation by the NIA against the appellant. It has been found that the appellant had been in close