Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, SUBHASH CHAND, JJ.
Mrityunjay Kumar Singh @ Mrityunjay Kr. Singh @ Mrityunjay Kumar @ Sonu Singh, son of Santosh Kumar Singh - Appellant
Versus
Union of India through the National Investigation Agency - Respondent
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 356 of 2023 with Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 666 of 2023
Decided On : 18-05-2023
Indian Penal Code ,1860 – Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 302, 353 and 379 – Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 – Section 227 – Criminal Law (Amendment) Act – Section 17(i) and 17(ii) – Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 – Sections 10, 13, 17 and 18 – Offence of Rioting,armed with deadly weapon – Murder – Unlawful Assembly – Held, Court on basis of discussion made herein above and coming back to position of law for showing interference against order of framing of charge as per judgment rendered herein above wherein requirement is that at stage of discharge/framing of charge Court is required to evaluate materials and documents on record - Court are of view that after going through material collected as referred in counter affidavit and considering it on its face value which according to considered value discloses presence of ingredients to constitute offence – Court are of considered view that ground so agitated for interfering with order passed by learned trial Court refusing to discharge appellant is having no substance – Appeals dismissed
Key Points: - The court must evaluate materials and documents on record at their face value to determine if there are ingredients to constitute the offence (!) (!) . - The test at Stage of Section 227 CrPC is to find whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, not to weigh evidence or decide guilt (!) (!) (!) . - Strong suspicion based on material on record, if it leads the court to think there is ground for presuming the accused committed an offence, is sufficient to frame a charge (!) (!) (!) . - The ingredients of Section 120B read with Sections 121 and 121A include participation in criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with imprisonment for life or rigor, or waging war against the Government of India (!) (!) (!) . - The ingredients of Sections 10, 13, 17, 18, 39 and 40 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act relate to membership, participation, assistance, conspiracy, and raising or providing funds for a terrorist organisation (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) . - The accused’s acts of providing financial support, logistics, and funds to a proscribed terrorist organisation, along with recovered cash and incriminating materials, prima facie attract these ingredients (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) . - At the discharge stage, the accused is not entitled to produce material or evidence; the court only considers material filed by the prosecution (!) (!) (!) . - The court rejected the appellant’s plea of lack of mens rea and interference, holding that gathering funds under coercion is not a defence and does not negate prima facie case (!) (!) (!) . - Both appeals were dismissed as the charges prima facie indicate ingredients of the alleged offences and there was sufficient ground to proceed (!) (!) (!) . - The findings are restricted to discharge and framing of charges and do not prejudice the trial court’s evaluation of evidence during trial (!) .
ORDER :
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) :
Since both the appeals arise out of the same case, being Special (NIA) Case No. 02 of 2020, corresponding to R.C. No. 25 of 2020/NIA/DLI arising out of Chandwa P.S. Case No. 158 of 2019, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, they are taken up together and are being disposed of by this common order.
2. Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 356 of 2023 is preferred under Section 21 of the National Investigating Agency Act, 2008 against order dated 16.02.2023 passed in Special (NIA) Case No. 02 of 2020 corresponding to R.C. No. 25 of 2020/NIA/DLI arising out of Chandwa P.S. Case No. 158 of 2019 registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 302, 353 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code; Section 27 of the Arms Act, Section 17(i) and 17(ii) of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act and Sections 10, 13, 17 and 18 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, whereby and whereunder the application filed under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for discharge being Miscellaneous Criminal Application No. 128 of 2023 has been rejected.
3. Whereas Criminal Appeal No. 666 of 2023 has been filed against order dated 11.04.2023 in Special (NIA) Case No. 02 of 2020 by which charges have been framed against the appellant under Section 120B read with Sections 121, 121A of the Indian Penal Code; under Section 10, 13, 17, 18, 39 and 40 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.
4. The factual matrix leading to filing of instant case, as per the pleadings available on record, in brief, is that on 22.11.2019 at about 20:00 hours a patrolling party stopped at Lukuiya More, Chandwa (Latehar), where the members of CPI (Maoist), a banned terrorist organization, fired indiscriminately on the police patrolling party and killed four police personnel and looted government issued arms and ammunitions i.e., 01 pistol, ten rounds of 9 mm ammunition, three 0.303 rifle with 150 round bullet from the police persons and shouted slogans “Maowadi Zindabad” and thereafter escaped from the place of occurrence.
One Home Guard, namely, Dinesh Ram, who escaped unhurt, went to Chandwa Police Station and lodged complaint against 18 named accused persons and some unknown persons, which was registered as Chandwa P.S. Case No. 158 of 2019 dated 23.11.2019.
After investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet against six accused persons, namely, Baijnath Ganjhu, Sunil Ganjhu @ Mangra, Rajesh Kumar Ganjhu, Sanjay Ganjhu, Naresh Ganjhu and Faguna Ganjhu.
The Central Government, taking into consideration the gravity of the offence, in exercise of power conferred under Sub-section (5) of Section 6 read with Section 8 of the National Investigating Agency Act, 2008 directed the ‘National Investigating Agency’ (in short ‘NIA’) to take up the investigation of the case and accordingly, Chandwa P.S. Case No. 158 of 2019 was re-registered as R.C. No. 25 of 2020/NIA/DLI dated 24.06.2020 under Sections under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 302, 353 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 27 of the Arms Act, Section 17(i) and 17(ii) of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act and Sections 10, 13, 17 and 18 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.
The ‘National Investigating Agency’, after investigation, submitted first supplementary charge-sheet on 30.04.2021 against 34 accused persons including the appellant herein under Sections 120B, 121, 121A, 122, 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 353, 395, 396 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code; under Section 10, 13, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 38, 39 and 40 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and also under Section 25(1-b)a, 26, 27 and 35 of the Arms Act.
So far present appellant is concerned, he was arrested on 03.02.2021 and taken in police remand from 04.02.2021 to 09.02.2021 and was arrayed as Accused No. 8 (A-8) in the first supplementary charge-sheet dated 30.04.2021.
The role and activities alleged to have been established against the appellant at paragraph 17.24 (8) of the first supplementary ch
The main legal point established is that the appellant's actions, driven by extortion and compulsion, did not constitute voluntary involvement in terrorist activities, leading to the court's decision....
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 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....
Sufficient evidence existed to justify framing terrorism-related charges against the appellant based on allegations of conspiracy and radicalization supporting a proscribed organization.
Sections 17 read as punishment for raising funds for terrorist act.
(1) If Court is satisfied after examining material on record that there are no reasonable grounds for believing that accusation against accused is prima facie true, then accused is entitled to bail.(....
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
