Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, RATNAKER BHENGRA, JJ.
Gopal Krishna Patar @ Raja Peter, S/o. Late Khetra Mohan Patar - Appellant
Versus
Union of India, through National Investigating Agency, New Delhi - Respondent
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 856 of 2019
Decided On : 05-04-2022
CRIMINAL APPEAL - BAIL - UNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT, 1967 - SECTION 43-D(5) - PRIMA FACIE CASE - EXISTENCE OF - CONSIDERATION OF MATERIALS - DUTY OF COURT - ORDER - CONTENTS OF - SUFFICIENCY - SUBSEQUENT BAIL APPLICATION - GROUNDS TO BE SHOWN - LONG INCARCERATION - EFFECT OF - ARTICLE 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - VIOLATION OF - FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, Gopal Krishna Patar @ Raja Peter, was arrested on 9th October 2017 in connection with a quadruple murder case that occurred in 2008. He was denied bail by the Special Judge (NIA) at Ranchi. The appellant filed a criminal appeal challenging the order of the Special Judge.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that there was prima facie evidence against the appellant and that the accusations against him appeared to be true. The Court also held that the appellant had a long history of criminal involvement and that there was a reasonable apprehension that he would impede the trial if released on bail. The Court further held that the appellant's long incarceration did not violate his rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Issues: 1. Whether there was prima facie evidence against the appellant to justify denial of bail? 2. Whether the appellant's long history of criminal involvement and the reasonable apprehension that he would impede the trial if released on bail were relevant considerations for denying bail? 3. Whether the appellant's long incarceration violated his rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the materials collected during the investigation by the NIA, including the confessional statements of co-accused, the seizure of incriminating letters, and the appellant's political ambitions, established a prima facie case against him. 2. The Court held that the appellant's long history of criminal involvement and the reasonable apprehension that he would impede the trial if released on bail were relevant considerations for denying bail. 3. The Court held that the appellant's long incarceration did not violate his rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, as he had not been denied a speedy trial and there was no evidence that his incarceration was arbitrary or excessive.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the appellant's criminal appeal and upheld the order of the Special Judge denying bail.
JUDGMENT :
Shree Chandrashekhar, J.
Gopal Krishna Patar @ Raja Peter has filed this criminal appeal under section 21 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (in short, NIA) against the order dated 3rd August 2019 passed by the Judicial Commissioner-cum-Special Judge, NIA at Ranchi in Misc. Cr. Application No. 757 of 2019. By the said order, the Special Judge (NIA) rejected the application seeking bail to the appellant in connection to Special (NIA) 1 of 2017 – that was fourth attempt by the appellant in NIA Court.
2. The appellant is in custody since 9th October 2017.
3. This criminal appeal was filed on 26th August 2019 but as the proceedings would reveal the matter was not prosecuted on behalf of the appellant for more than 2 years. By virtue of an order of assignment dated 24th August 2021, this criminal appeal was listed before us for the first time on 31st January 2022.
4. A crime was registered at Bundu PS on the statement of Nand Kishore Yadav who had driven Ramesh Singh Munda on a vehicle (Tavera) to S.S. High School, Bundu at around 12:15 hrs. on 9th July 2008, where he was assassinated by unknown criminals – 3 more persons lost their lives in the incident.
5. The case of the prosecution is that on the information supplied by Sheshnath Singh Kharwar who was one of the bodyguards of Ramesh Singh Munda the Maoists came at S.S. High School, Bundu where Ramesh Singh Munda was invited in a prize distribution ceremony. The informant saw that three Maoists carrying weapons moved towards the bodyguards of Ramesh Singh Munda who were standing in the corridor adjacent to the hall of the school where the programme was organized. One of the Maoists first fired in the air and then they all started firing at Shivnath Minz and Khurshid Alam, the guards. The informant who at that time was in Tavera on which Ramesh Singh Munda had come to the school could see that the Maoists continued firing for three to five minutes and then left the scene of crime shouting slogans “Maowadi Zindabad”. He saw gunshot injuries on Shivnath Minz, Khurshid Alam and the unknown boy – Ramesh Singh Munda had suffered multiple gunshot injury. All four persons were taken to Ranchi Institute of Medical Sciences by Bundu police where the doctors declared them brought dead. The informant claimed that he could recognize 3 persons who were around 25 years of age and wearing raincoats, amongst 10-12 other persons who were involved in the occurrence.
6. In Bundu PS Case No. 65 of 2008 which was lodged against unknown assailants, a charge-sheet was filed on 25th October 2008 against Dileshwar Mahto, Bindu Devi, Mahadev Oraon and Mahendra Oraon while investigation against other accused was kept pending. The charge-sheet dated 25th October 2008 gave rise to Sessions Trial No. 50 of 2009 which according to the appellant ended in acquittal of all four accused vide judgment dated 1st September 2010. The Crime Investigation Department (in short, CID) which took over the investigation from local police filed 1st supplementary charge-sheet on 30th November 2009 against Balram Sahu while investigation against Kundan Pahan, Radhe Shyam Badaik, Ram Mohan Singh Munda, Santosh Munda, Mahesh Munda, Pawan Singh Munda and other unknown accused remained pending – on this Sessions Trial No. 77 of 2010 commenced.
7. 2nd supplementary charge-sheet came to be filed on 30th September 2016 against Kundan Pahan, Radhe Shyam Badaik and Ram Mohan Singh Munda stating therein that the investigation in respect of Pawan Singh Munda, Santosh Munda, Mahesh Munda, Tulsi Das, Jakaria, Binod, Gurua Munda and against other unknown accused was pending. This 2nd supplementary charge-sheet led to Sessions Trial No. 310 of 2016 in which the aforesaid three persons were put on trial.
8. At this stage, by an order dated 29th May 2017 offences under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (in short, UAPA) were added and NIA was directed by the Central Government vide order dated 28th June 2017 to investi
The existence of a prima facie case, the gravity of the offence, the severity of punishment, the antecedent of the appellant, and the possibility of the appellant impeding the trial once he is releas....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need to crosscheck the truthfulness of allegations, the relevance of confessional statements made by co-accused in different cases, and the con....
The completion of investigation and prolonged judicial custody are significant factors in determining the entitlement to bail under UAPA. The court emphasized the mandatory requirements under Section....
The court confirmed that under Section 43D(5) of UAPA, bail cannot be granted if there are reasonable grounds to believe the accusations are prima facie true.
The court established that involvement with a banned terrorist organization and the collection of levies for such groups constitutes serious offenses under the UA(P) Act, warranting denial of bail wh....
The main legal point established is that the grant of bail under UAPA requires a prima facie view of the accused's involvement, balancing of various factors, and imposition of stringent conditions to....
Bail – Being a member of banned organization is also an offence under UA(P) Act and bail can be declined.
(1) Regular bail – Issue of national integrity is also to be taken care of so as to maintain balance.(2) Precedent – Ratio of judgment is to be applied on the basis of factual aspect involved in each....
The court established that under the UAPA, particularly Section 43D(5), the standard for denying bail is based on whether the accusations are prima facie true, which requires a careful examination of....
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
