IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Rongon Mukhopadhyay, Ambuj Nath, JJ.
Roshan Oraon, S/o Vifai Oraon - Appellant
Versus
Union of India through N.I.A. - Respondent
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 591 of 2019
Decided On : 21-09-2022
TERRORIST ACT - National Investigation Agency - UA(P) Act, 1967, Section 17 - Summary: The court discussed the allegations against the appellant under Section 17 of the UA(P) Act, which punishes raising funds for a terrorist act. The court analyzed the appellant's role as a senior team leader in a company and the collection of funds, ultimately concluding that the appellant's actions did not solely constitute a terrorist act.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant's bail plea was rejected by the lower court based on allegations of conspiracy and involvement in depositing funds for a terrorist organization. The appellant had been in custody since 21.03.2018.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant's role in collecting funds did not solely constitute a terrorist act, and considering the length of the appellant's custody and the remote possibility of the trial being concluded, the court granted bail to the appellant.
Issues: Allegations of conspiracy and involvement in depositing funds for a terrorist organization.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the appellant's role and the nature of the collected funds, ultimately concluding that the appellant's actions did not solely constitute a terrorist act.
Final Decision: The court set aside the lower court's order and directed the release of the appellant on bail.
JUDGMENT :
Heard Mr. A.K. Chaturvedy, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. A.K. Das, learned Spl. P.P. for the National Investigation Agency.
2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 13.05.2019 passed by the learned Judicial Commissioner-cum-Special Judge, N.I.A, Ranchi in Misc. Cr. Application No. 344/2019 (RC-01/2018/NIA/DLI), arising out of Balumath P.S. Case No. 161/2016, corresponding to Special (N.I.A) Case No. 01/2018, whereby and whereunder the prayer for bail of the appellant has been rejected.
3. The self statement of S.I. Nand Kishore Prasad was registered on 21.12.2016 in the house of Chandan Kumar in which it has been alleged that a secret information was received that the owner of Sahara Bank namely Chandan Kumar is planning to deposit the money of Chhotu Kherwar who is a member of a terrorist organization. A station diary entry was made and after constituting a police party the team reached the premises of Sahara Bank situated at Balumath market. The manager of Sahara Bank namely Chandan Kumar was taken to the Police Station for questioning. In his confessional statement, Chandan Kumar had disclosed that he was working in the post of Manager of Sahara Bank for the last five years. About 10-15 days back Chhotu Kherwar of MCC had called him up for depositing Rs. 15,00,000/- old currency notes. Chandan Kumar was thereafter given Rs. 15,00,000/- by Santosh Oraon. It has further been alleged that he took the cash and kept in his house for 2-3 days. The Agents of Sahara Bank namely, Mahendra Saw, Binova Prasad Gupta, Birendra Kumar Sinha, Anil Oraon, Shankar Sao and Pradip Ganjhu were directed to deposit Rs. 12,00,000/- in their individual accounts. The Agents had accordingly deposited various amounts in their accounts. It has been alleged that Chandan Kumar had kept an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/-in his house. The amount of Rs. 12,00,000/-was fixed deposited in the name of Lalita Devi wife of Chhotu Kherwar. In view of such revelations the house of Chandan Kumar was searched and from the almirah of his bed room Rs. 3,00,100/-in cash of various denomination was recovered. On search of the premises of Sahara Bank 64 receipts bearing the signature of Chandan Kumar and in the name of Lalita Devi of Hamara India Credit Co-operative Society Limited were recovered. An Aadhar Card in the name of Lalita Devi was also seized. The accused Chandan Kumar was arrested by the Police.
4. Based on the aforesaid allegations Balumath P.S. Case No. 161/2016 was instituted against Chandan Kumar, Chhotu Kherwar and Santosh Oraon for the offences punishable u/s 420/120(B) of the IPC and u/s 17 of the U.A.(P) Act.
5. Subsequently in terms of the order dated 16.01.2018 of the Ministry of Home Affairs, Internal Security-I Division, Government of India, investigation of Balumath P.S. Case No. 161/2016 was handed over to the National Investigation Agency and the First Information Report was thereafter re-registered as RC-01/ 2018/ NIA/ DLI.
6. It has been submitted by Mr. A.K. Chaturvedy, learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is not named in the First Information Report. It has been submitted that the primary allegations have been levelled against Chandan Kumar and Lalita Devi for having deposited Rs. 12,00,000/-of old currency notes post demonetization. It has been submitted that there is no evidence on record to suggest that the appellant is a member of a terrorist organization or had raised funds which were likely to be used to commit a terrorist act. He has further submitted that the appellant is in custody since 21.03.2018 and there is no likelihood of the trial being concluded in the near future.
7. Mr. A.K. Das, learned Spl. P.P. has submitted that the appellant had conspired with Chandan Kumar, Chhotu Kherwar @ Birju Ganjhu in depositing the amount of Rs. 12,00,000/-in the name of Lalita Devi. He has submitted that Santosh Oraon through the present appellant had deposited extorted amounts of Maoist leaders in M/s Petr
Bail – Delay in conclusion of trial is a relevant consideration for grant of bail.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of provisions under the UA(P) Act, particularly sections 43-D(5), 15, and 17, and the relevance of long pre-trial incarceration ....
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....
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 presumption of innocence prevails, and lack of substantial evidence justifies bail under UAPA despite serious charges.
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 ....
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.