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 to grant bail.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. A. K. Das, learned Special P. P. for the NIA.

2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 18.11.2021 passed by Shri Madhuresh Kumar Verma, learned A.J.C. XVI cum Special Judge, NIA, Ranchi in connection with Special (NIA) Case No. 2 of 2020 corresponding to R. C. No. 25 of 2020/NIA/DLI arising out of Chandwa P. S. Case No. 158 of 2019 whereby and whereunder the prayer for bail of the appellant has been rejected.

3. The prosecution case is that on 22.11.2019 at 8:00 P.M., a patrolling party of Chandwa Police Station in course of patrolling duty stopped at Lukuiya More at Chandwa. It has been alleged that the cadre of banned terrorist organization i.e. CPI (Maoist) which were waiting in advance, fired indiscriminately at the police patrolling party which led to the death of 4 police personnel. Arms and ammunitions were also looted from the martyred police personnel and by raising slogans, the Maoists fled away. Later on, one of the Home Guard namely, Dinesh Ram who had escaped unhurt, rushed to the Chandwa Police Station and lodged a complaint.

4. Based on the aforesaid allegations, Chandwa P. S. Case No. 158 of 2019 was instituted against 18 named and some unknown accused persons. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against Baijnath Ganjhu, Sunil Ganjhu @ Mangra, Rajesh Kumar Ganjhu, Sanjay Ganjhu, Naresh Ganjhu and Faguna Ganjhu.

The Central Government in exercise of its power conferred under Sub-section (5) of Section 6 read with Section 8 of the National Investigating Agency Act, 2008 vide M.H.A. New Delhi, CTCR Division Order no. 11011/42/2020/NIA dated 22.06.2020 directed the NIA to take up the investigation and accordingly, Chandwa P. S. Case No. 158 of 2019 was re-registered as R. C. No. 25 of 2020/NIA/DLI under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 302, 353 & 379 of Indian Penal Code, under Section 27 of the Arms Act, under Section 17 (i) & (ii) of Criminal Law Amendment Act and under Sections 10, 13, 17 and 18 of Unlawful Activity (Prevention) Act, 1967.

The NIA had submitted the first supplementary charge-sheet against 34 persons including the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 120 (B), 121, 121 (A), 122, 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 353, 395, 396 & 427 of Indian Penal Code, under Sections 10, 13, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 38, 39 & 40 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and under Sections 25 (1-b) a, 26, 27 & 35 of the Arms Act.

5. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the appellant while referring to Sections 39 and 40 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as ‘UAP Act’, for the sake of brevity) has submitted that the said penal provisions are built upon the word ‘intention’, but the evidence against the appellant does indicate that there was no ‘intention’ on the part of the appellant to further the activities of the terrorist organization. It has been submitted that the appellant is a partner in M/s. Santosh Construction, a firm registered with the road construction department since the year 2012. Mr. Sinha, learned counsel has submitted that the allegations against the appellants do not constitute a terrorist act, rather the appellant was himself a victim of the terrorist organization having to cough up levy as and when demanded in order to ensure smooth running of his business. So far as the recovery of Rs. 2.64 crores of cash from the house of the appellant is concerned, the same was not derived or obtained as a consequence to a terrorist act, but was related to the business concern of the appellant. The appellant has borne the brunt of terrorist act as on several occasions, the vehicles and equipments of the firm of the appellant have been burnt or damaged by the cadres of the terrorist organization for which the appellant had also instituted several cases. Mr. Sinha, has referred to the evidences of P.W. 60 and P.W. 123 in which they have denied that the app