The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of prima facie evidence to establish the awareness of an individual in harbouring terrorists under the UAP Act.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. R. S. Mazumdar, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned Special P.P. appearing for the NIA.

2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 31.01.2022 passed by Sri Madhuresh Kumar Verma, AJC XVI cum Spl. Judge, NIA, Ranchi in Misc. Cr. Application No. 1789 of 2021 corresponding to Special (NIA) Case No. 1 of 2021/NIA/RNC arising out of Balumath P. S. Case No. 234 of 2022 whereby and whereunder the prayer for bail of the appellant has been rejected.

3. It has been alleged that on 18.12.2020 an information was received at Balumath, Police Station that some unknown persons were burning vehicles and firing indiscriminately near Check-post No. 1 at Tetariakhad Colliery. The miscreants had fired at the Police party that had rushed to the spot and had also burnt 04 trucks, 01 motorcycle and had also injured 04 civilians. From the place of occurrence remnants of burnt vehicles, fragments of a can bomb with wire, spent cartridges, handwritten pamphlets issuing threats to transporters and coal companies involved in mining signed by one Pradeep Ganjhu etc. were found. On inquiry it was revealed that gangster Sujit Sinha and Aman Sao had conspired with Pradeep Ganjhu and his associates namely Santosh Ganjhu (appellant), Pramod Ganjhu and others in disruption of Government work as well as for extortion.

4. Based on the aforesaid allegations Balumath P.S. Case No. 234/2020 was instituted for the offences punishable u/s 147, 148, 149, 353, 504, 506, 307, 427, 435, 386, 387, 120-B, 121-A, 216 of the IPC, Sections 25(1)(b), 26, 27, 35 of the Arms Act, Sections 3/4 of the Explosive Substances Act, Sections 17 of the CLA Act and Sections 10, 13, 16(1), (b), 20 and 23 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as the UAP Act for the sake of brevity).

5. The Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India in exercise of powers conferred u/s 6(5) read with Section 8 of the NIA Act vide F. No. 11011/01/2020/NIA dated 07.01.2020 directed the National Investigation Agency to take up investigation of Balumath P.S. Case No. 234/2020 which was re-registered as Case No. 01/ 2021/ NIA-RNC. Charge-sheet was subsequently submitted against the appellant and other accused persons.

6. It has been submitted by Mr. R. S. Mazumdar, learned senior counsel for the appellant that only allegation against the appellant is of ensuring a safe passage to Pradeep Ganjhu and Shahrukh Ansari. It has been submitted that in fact the allegations against the appellant seems to be of conspiring with the accused persons in harbouring Pradeep Ganjhu and Shahrukh Ansari and there is nothing to show that the appellant had taken part in Tetariakhad colliery incident. He had referred to an order passed by this court in Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 98 of 2022 (Santosh Kumar @ Banti Yadav Vs. NIA) granting bail to the said accused and has further pointed out that the case of the appellant is similar, if not on a better footing to that of the said co-accused persons. Mr. Mazumdar, learned senior counsel has also submitted that the appellant is in custody since 07.02.2021 and there is no chance of the trial being concluded in the near future.

7. Mr. A. K. Das, learned Special P. P. for the NIA countering such submission has referred to the supplementary charge-sheet while stating that the appellant was all along aware about Pradeep Ganjhu and Shahrukh Ansari being involved in terrorist activities which would render Section 19 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act clearly applicable to the case of the appellant. It has been submitted that the facts and circumstances of the case makes out a prima-facie case against the appellant, thus activating the embargo for grant of bail as per Section 43 –D (5) of the UAP Act.

8. We have considered the rival submissions and have also perused the various affidavits on record including the supplementary charge-sheet.

9. The primary allegation which could b