IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
RAVI RANJAN, SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, JJ.
Vinit Agarwal alias Vineet Agarwal - Appellant
Versus
Union of India - Respondent
Criminal Appeal (DB) No.71, 117, 119 of 2020
Decided on : 18-01-2022
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 414, 384, 386, 387, 120-B, 201 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 164 – Arms Act, 1959 – Sections 25(1B) a/26/35 – National Investigating Agency Act, 2008 – Section 21 – Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 – Section 17 – Criminal Law Amendment Act , 1908 – Section 17 – Framing of charges – Quashing of F.I.R – Punishment for criminal conspiracy – Appeals (three in number), have been heard together with consent of parties in view of fact that common issues are involved and are being disposed of by this common order – Held, Court make it clear that ordinarily Court would not have delved upon in such detail materials collected during course of investigation which emanate out of different paragraphs of Charge Sheet and have done close scrutiny and recorded findings but court were compelled to do so as almost all learned counsel appearing for appellants have vehemently argued fact of case – Same also stands reflected from their respective written notes on submissions. In fact they, by doing so, invited our findings on fact – However, Court make it clear that findings are restricted only for purpose of dealing with matter of cognizance and trial court shall not be influenced by these observations or findings recorded in present judgment either at time of framing of charges or during trial – Disposed of.
JUDGMENT :
Ravi Ranjan, J.
With consent of the parties, hearing of the matters was done through video conferencing and there was no complaint whatsoever regarding audio and visual quality.
2. These appeals (three in number), have been heard together with consent of the parties in view of the fact that common issues are involved and are being disposed of by this common order.
3. The instant appeals have been preferred invoking the jurisdiction conferred upon this Court under Section 21 of the National Investigating Agency Act, 2008 against the order taking cognizance dated 13.01.2020 passed in Special (NIA) Case No.03 of 2018(S) corresponding to R.C. No.06/2018/NIA/DLI arising out of Tandwa P.S. Case No. 02 of 2016 by the court of Judicial Commissioner-cum-Special Judge, NIA at Ranchi whereby and whereunder the cognizance of offences punishable under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 17 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (hereinafter referred as the U.A.(P) Act, 1967), substantive offences under Sections 17 and 18 of the U.A.(P) Act, 1967 and under Section 17 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1908 has been taken.
4. The brief background of the fact stands enumerated as under :-
The case pertains to the incident of extortion/levy collection/money laundering by Maoist cadres in Left Wing Extremism affected States like Jharkhand and Bihar. A case was registered by Tandwa Police Station, District Chatra, being Tandwa P.S. Case No.02 of 2016 dated 11.01.2016 under Sections 414/384/386/387/120-B of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 25(1B) a/26/35 of the Arms Act and Section 17(1)(2) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act against Vinod Ganjhu, Munesh Ganjhu, Pradeep Ram, Birbal Ganjhu, Gopal Singh Bhokta @ Brijesh Ganjhu, Mukesh Ganjhu, Koharam Ji, Akramanji @ Ravinder Ganjhu, Anischay Ganjhu, Deepu Singh @ Bhikhan, Bindu Ganjhu and Bhikhan Ganjhu on the basis of complaint made by Sri Ramdhari Singh, Sub-Inspector, P.S.-Simariya alleging therein that some locals have formed an operating committee in the coal region of Amrapali/Magadh projects under P.S. Tandwa having relation with banned unlawful association “Tritya Prastuti Committee (hereinafter referred to as TPC). Some people of the operating committee were threatening the contractors, transporters, DO holders and coal businessmen for extorting/collecting levy in the name of the operatives of banned TPC organization.
After investigation, Charge-sheet No.17 of 2016 dated 10.03.2016 was filed before the court of C.J.M., Chatra against arrested accused persons namely, Binod Kumar Ganjhu, Munesh Ganjhu, Birbal Ganjhu, Pradeep Ram and Bindu Ganjhu @ Bindeshwar Ganjhu under Sections 414, 384, 386, 387 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 25(1B) a/26/35 of the Arms Act and Section 17(1)(2) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act and the Investigation was being continued against absconding accused persons namely, Gopal Singh Bhokta, @ Brajesh Ganjhu, Mukesh Ganjhu, Kohramji, Akramanji @ Ravindra Ganjhu, Anischaya Ganjhu, Deepu Singh @ Bhikan and Bhikan Ganjhu. Further, Sections 16, 17, 20 and 23 of the U.A.(P) Act were added against all the F.I.R. named accused persons except Deepu Singh @ Bhikan on 12.04.2017.
The Central Government, taking into consideration the gravity of the offence due to seizure of arms & ammunition and cash to the tune of Rs.1,49,33,610/- and other incriminating materials from Maoist cadre, exercised its power conferred under Sub-Section (5) of Section 6 read with Section 8 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 vide MHA, New Delhi CTCR Division order no. 11011/08/2018/NIA dated 13.02.2018, directed the NIA to take up investigation of the case and accordingly Tandwa P.S. Case No.02 of 2016 dated 11.01.2016 was re-registered as NIA Case No. R.C.-06/2018/NIA/DLI dated 16.02.2018 under Sections 414, 384, 386, 387 and 120-B of the
Amarendra Pratap Singh v. Tej Bahadur Prajapati and Others (2004) 10 SCC 65
Arup Bhuyan v. State of Assam (2011) 3 SCC 377
Aneeta Hada v. Godfather Travels & Tours (P) Ltd. (2012) 5 SCC 661
Bhushan Kumar and Another v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Another (2012) 5 SCC 424
Chief Enforcement Officer v. Videocon International Ltd.
CBI, Hyderabad v. K. Narayana Rao
Dr. Subramanian Swamy v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others (2014) 5 SCC 75
Extra-judicial Execution Victim Families Association v. Union of India (2016) 14 SCC 536
Fakhruddin Ahmad v. State of Uttaranchal and Another (2008) 17 SCC 157
Hitendra Vishnu Thakur v. State of Maharashtra and Others (1994) 4 SCC 602
Indra Das v. State of Assam (2011) 3 SCC 380
Girish Kumar Suneja v. CBI (2017) 14 SCC 809
K. Sitaram and Another v. CFL Capital Financial Service Ltd. and Another (2017) 5 SCC 725
Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab (1994) 3 SCC 569
Lt. Col. Prasad Shrikant Purohit v. State of Maharashtra and Another (2018) 11 SCC 458
Mehmood Ul Rehman v. Khazir Mohammad Tunda and Others (2015) 12 SCC 420
Manjit Singh alias Mange v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2011) 11 SCC 578
National Investigation Agency v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali (2019) 5 SCC 1 .
Niranjan Singh Karam Singh Punjabi
Prasad Shrikant Purohit v. State of Maharashtra and Another (2015) 7 SCC 440
People’s Union for Civil Liberties and Another v. Union of India (2004) 9 SCC 580
Ranjitsing Brahmajeetsing Sharma v. State of Maharashtra and Another (2005) 5 SCC 294
Redaul Hussain Khan v. National Investigation Agency (2010) 1 SCC 521
State of Kerala v. Raneef (2011) 1 SCC 784
Sunil Bharti Mittal v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2015) 4 SCC 609
State of Andhra Pradesh v. Mohd. Hussain alias Saleem (2014) 1 SCC 258
Sunil Bharti Mittal v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2015) 4 SCC 609 .
Smt Nagawwa v. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi and Others (1976) 3 SCC 736
Tolaram Relum v. State of Bombay AIR 1954 SC 496
Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali alias Deeak and Others (2013) 5 SCC 762
Bail application – Task to convince court that there are no reasonable grounds for believing that accusations are prima facie true becomes more onerous in a case of bail without ousting such prayer, ....
The court upheld the denial of bail under the UAP Act, emphasizing the serious nature of the charges and the prima facie evidence against the appellant.
The NIA has the power to investigate cases under the NIA Act, and the court must consider the prima facie case against the accused, the length of custody, and the likelihood of trial conclusion when ....
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....
(1) Sanctioning Authority is required to apply its mind on the basis of fact gathered in course of investigation by Investigating Agency.(2) NIA can carry on further investigation and submit a supple....
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....
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.