IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.
Sudhanshu Ranjan @ Chhotu Singh - Petitioner
Versus
The Union of India, through National Investigation Agency, New Delhi - Opposite Party
Cr.M.P. No. 1300 of 2021
Decided On : 22-04-2022
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. hearing conducted via video conferencing. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. details of the fir and context of charges. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. arguments regarding maintainability under section 482 cr.p.c. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. the mandatory nature of section 306(4)(b) regarding detention of approvers. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 5. legal interpretation of approvers' detention and rights under article 21. (Para 13 , 18) |
| 6. court's observation on balance of detainment and article 21. (Para 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 7. arguments against prolonged detainment without bail option. (Para 19 , 20) |
| 8. legal precedent and reasoning for conditional granting of bail. (Para 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 9. decision to grant bail with conditions outlined. (Para 24) |
| 10. conclusion and order of the court. (Para 25 , 26) |
ORDER :
Heard.
2. This petition has been heard through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have complained about any technical snag of audio-video and with their consent this matter has been heard.
3. In this case an office note was there to the effect that since the case is arising out of National Investigation Agency, Act, 2008, as the matter will lie before the Division Bench and by order dated 18.08.2021 considering the submission of learned counsel appearing for the parties as well as the judgment relied by the petitioner, this Court held that prima facie this matter is maintainable under section 482 Cr.P.C., thereafter the matter was adjourned from time to time for cross-examining the petitioner by the counsels of co-accused persons.
4. In the present case, the petitioner has prayed for granting his release on bail as he has been tendered pardon(turned approver) under Section 306 Cr.P.C. in connection with RC-06/2018/NIA/DLI dated 16.02.2018 corresponding to Special (NIA) Case No.03/2018 registered under sections 414/384/386/387/120B of the IPC, 25(1-b)a/26/35 of the ARMS ACT , Section 17 (1)(2) of the CLA Act and sections 16/17/20/23 of the UA(P) Act and the case is pending in the court of learned Special Judge, NIA-cum-Additional Judicial Commissioner-XVI, Ranchi.
5. The FIR was registered alleging therein that-
b) That it has been alleged in the FIR so registered in Tandwa P.S.02/2016 that credible information received by SP, Chatra that some locals have formed an operating committee in the coal region of Amrapali/Magadh Projects under P.S. Tandwa;
c) That it has further been alleged that the operating committee has relation with banned unlawful association Tritiya Prastuti Committee (in short TPC). Some people of the operating committee were threatening the contractors, transporters, DO holders and coal businessman for extorting /collecting levy in the name of the operatives of banned organization namely Gopal Singh Bhokta @ Brijesh Ganjhu, Mukesh Ganjhu, Kohram Ji, Akrman Ji @ Ravindra Ganjhu, Anishchay Ganjhu, Bhikhan Ganjhu, Deepu Singh @ Bhikan and Bindu Ganjhu;
d) That on the of SP, Chatra, a team headed by Shri Akhilesh B.Variyar, SDPO, Tandwa along with SHO Tandwa and QRT Team raided at about 09.10 PM on 11.02.2016 in the house of Binod Kumar Ganjhu who was the president of Magadh Operating Committee and in presence of independent witnesses namely Raj Kumar Bhagat Rs. 91,75,890/- (Rs. Ninety One Lakh Seventy Five Thousand and Eight Hundred Ninety) was seized and two mobile phones were also seized;
e) That two suspected persons namely Birbal Ganjhu and Munesh Ganjhu were also present in the house of Binod Kumar Ganjhu. In the personal search of Birbal Ganjhu one loaded mous
Aamir Abbas Dev v. State, through NIA
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India
Noor Taki alias Mammu v. State of Rajasthan
P.Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement (2020) 13 SCC 791
Pardon person - where the provisions of Section 306(4)(b) of the Cr.P.C. 1973 stipulate categorically to the effect that every person accepting a tender or pardon made under Sub-Section (1) of Sectio....
The court held that an approver can be granted bail before trial completion under exceptional circumstances, interpreting Section 306(4)(b) in alignment with Article 21 of the Constitution.
The High Court can exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to release an approver granted pardon, despite the restrictions of Section 306(4)(b), particularly in light of special cir....
An approver, granted pardon, may be released on bail under inherent power despite legislative bar, reflecting the need for justice and preventing undue detention.
Prolonged detention of an approver without trial violates the fundamental right to speedy trial under Article 21, applicable to foreign nationals.
Bail – Section 436-A of Cr.P.C. does not exclude offences under NDPS Act – Deprivation of personal liberty without ensuring speedy trial is not consistent with Article 21.
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.