IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, RAJESH KUMAR, JJ.
Ajit Kumar Thakur - Appellant
Versus
Union of India through National Investigation & Ors. - Respondents
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 999 of 2019
Decided On : 13-07-2022
NIA Act - Jurisdiction of NIA - UAP Act, 1967 - Sections 16, 17, 20 & 23 - Summary of Acts and Sections
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a retired General Manager of Central Coal Fields Ltd., was accused of abetting in the collection of levy through coal transporters and contractors for a banned extremist organization. The National Investigation Agency (NIA) was directed to investigate the case under the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (NIA Act) and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAP Act). The appellant filed a bail application, challenging NIA's jurisdiction and the prima facie case against him.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the NIA had the power to investigate the case, and the allegations against the appellant were prima facie true. However, it noted that the appellant's role did not establish a prima facie case under Section 43 (D) (5) of UAP Act. The court also considered the length of custody and the unlikelihood of a trial being concluded in the near future.
Issues: Jurisdiction of NIA, Prima facie case against the appellant, Length of custody and likelihood of trial conclusion
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the NIA had the power to investigate the case and the allegations against the appellant were prima facie true. However, it also considered the appellant's role and the unlikelihood of a trial being concluded in the near future, leading to the grant of bail.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the order rejecting the bail application, and granted bail to the appellant with usual conditions.
ORDER :
Heard Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Vikramjeet Banerjee, learned ASGI appearing for the respondent no. 1 – National Investigation Agency.
2. Aggrieved by the order dated 16.09.2019 passed by the learned Judicial Commissioner cum Special Judge, NIA, Ranchi in connection with Special NIA Case No. 3 of 2018 (RC-06/2018/NIA/DLI) arising out of Tandwa P.S. Case No. 2 of 2016 whereby and whereunder the prayer for bail of the appellant was rejected, the appellant has preferred the present appeal under Section 21 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (‘NIA Act’, in short).
3. A written report was submitted by Ramdhari Singh, Sub-Inspector posted at Simaria Police Station to the effect that on 10.01.2016, a secret information was received by the Superintendent of Police that in Amrapali and Magadh Coal Area, Tandwa some local persons have formed an association which is related to the banned extremist organization outfit – TPC. The members of said organization were extracting levy from the coal traders and D.O. holders by creating a fear in the name of the extremists of T.P.C. – Gopal Singh Bhokta @ Brajesh Ganjhu, Mukesh Ganjhu, Kohramjee, Akramanjee @ Ravindra Ganjhu, Anischay Ganjhu, Bhikan Ganjhu, Deepu Singh @ Bhikan and Bindu Ganjhu.
4. It has been alleged that if any of the businessmen hesitate to pay levy, they were threatened by members of such organization and are also subjected to hardships. In order to verify the truthfulness or otherwise of such information, a raiding party was constituted on the orders of the Superintendent of Police, Chatra. A raid was conducted in the house of the President of the Association, Binod Kumar Ganjhu and from under his bed as well as from his almirah Rs.91,75,890/- cash was recovered. No satisfactory explanation could be submitted by Binod Kumar Ganjhu with respect to recovery of such a huge amount of cash. From the house of Binod Kumar Ganjhu, two persons were also apprehended who disclosed their names as Birbal Ganjhu and Munesh Ganjhu and on search of their persons, a loaded mauser pistol was recovered from the possession of Birbal Ganjhu while from the possession of Munesh Ganjhu, a countrymade pistol and two live cartridges were recovered. Both have confessed of being associated with the T.P.C. organization. Binod Kumar Ganjhu had disclosed that he is the President of Magadh Sanchalan Samiti and the levy collected is sent to Gopal Singh Bhokta @ Brajesh Ganjhu and thereafter it is distributed between Mukesh Ganjhu, Kohramjee, Akramanjee @ Ravindra Ganjhu, Anischay Ganjhu, Bhikan Ganjhu, Deepu Singh @ Bhikan. He has disclosed that Bindu Ganjhu is a member of Amrapali Sanchalan Samiti who collects levy on behalf of TPC and since he is at present in jail, the collection of levy is being done by Pradip Ram. On such information, a raid was conducted in the house of Pradip Ram and from under his bed as well as from an almirah Rs.57,57,710/- in cash was recovered. No satisfactory explanation could be furnished by Pradip Ram with respect to such recovery of cash.
Based on the aforesaid allegations, Tandwa P. S. Case No. 2 of 2016 was instituted for the offences under Sections 414, 384, 386, 387, 120 (B) I.P.C., Sections 25 (1-b) (a)/26/35 of the Arms Act and Section 17 (1) (2) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act against Binod Ganjhu, Munesh Ganjhu, Pradip Ram, Birbal Ganjhu, Gopal Singh Bhokta @ Brajesh Ganjhu, Mukesh Ganjhu, Kohramjee, Akramanjee @ Ravindra Ganjhu, Anischay Ganjhu, Deepu Singh @ Bhikan, Bindu Ganjhu and Bhikan Ganjhu.
5. In course of investigation Sections 16, 17, 20 & 23 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as ‘UAP Act’) were added. Since the offence involved is a scheduled offence in exercise of the power conferred under Section 6 (5) read with Section 8 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, the Central Government by order dated 13.02.2018 had directed the National Investi
AI
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 ....
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 statutory bail restrictions under the UAPA must be balanced with constitutional rights, particularly the right to a speedy trial, and that prolonged detention without trial....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the payment of extortion money does not necessarily amount to terror funding, and the court must assess the prima facie truth of the accusatio....
The judgment underscores the principle that prolonged pre-trial detention without substantial evidence of involvement in terrorist activities can infringe upon constitutional rights, warranting the g....
The court ruled that prolonged custody and unresolved trial mandates bail consideration, even in the face of stringent laws under UAPA.
Long periods of incarceration may warrant bail consideration, emphasizing constitutional rights over statutory restrictions where trials are unduly delayed.
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.