Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, RAJESH KUMAR, JJ.
Buredi Narayana - Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand – Respondent
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 180 of 2022
Decided on : 18-10-2022
TERRORISM - Bail Application - Criminal Law Amendment Act, Unlawful Activities Prevention Act - Section 17/18 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, Section 10/11/17/18/19 of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, brother of a member of a banned terrorist organization, was apprehended with a large sum of cash suspected to be extortion money. The NIA submitted a charge sheet against the appellant under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act and the Indian Penal Code.
Finding of the Court:
The court found a prima facie case against the appellant under Section 21 of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, leading to the rejection of the bail plea. The court emphasized the appellant's close association with the terrorist organization and the recovery of substantial amounts of cash from him.
Issues: The main issue was whether the appellant should be granted bail despite the prima facie evidence against him under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on Section 43-D(5) of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, which places the burden on the appellant to show that the case against him is not prima facie true. The court also considered the length of the appellant's custody and the likelihood of the trial being completed within a reasonable period.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, with a direction to the trial court to conclude the trial within a year.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Mrs. Kavitha Bagelikar, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned Spl.P.P for the NIA.
2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 24.01.2022 passed in Misc. Criminal application No. 1472 of 2021 in connection with RC-14/2017/NIA/DLI arising out of Chutia P.S. Case No. 180 of 2017 by Shri Madhuresh Kumar Verma, learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-XIV-cum-Special Judge, NIA, Ranchi, whereby and whereunder, the prayer for bail of the appellant has been rejected.
3. The appellant had earlier moved this Court for grant of bail in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 92 of 2020 and vide order dated 28.09.2020, the same dismissed.
4. The allegations reveal that on a secret information a raid was conducted by the police near Ranchi Railway Station and Buredi Narayana (Appellant) and Moola Satya Narayana Reddy were apprehended and while Rs. 5 Lakhs in cash was recovered from the appellant, more than Rs. 20 Lakhs and Gold bar weighing 473.9 grams as well as some incriminating documents were recovered from the possession of the co-accused. The accused persons were carrying the amount which has been collected through extortion to Telangana. The appellant is the younger brother of Sudhakar who is a member of the Central Committee of CPI (Maoist).
Based on the aforesaid allegations, Chutia P.S. Case No. 180 of 2017 was instituted u/s 386/34 I.P.C., Section 17/18 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act (CLA Act) and Section 10/11/17/18/19 of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAP Act).
5. The investigation of the case was handed over to NIA vide order No. 11011/35/2017-IS-IV of the Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt. of India, New Delhi dated 26.10.2017 and Chutia P.S. Case No. 180 of 2017 was reregistered as RC-14/2017/NIA/DLI. A charge sheet was submitted by the NIA against the appellant who has been arrayed as A1 u/s 21 UAP Act and Section 411/386 of the I.P.C.
6. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that there is no evidence that the amount recovered from the possession of the appellant were proceeds of extortion money collected by A3 and A4. It has been submitted that the appellant has been implicated on account of the fact that he is the brother of Sudhakar. The amount recovered was not ascertained to be the proceeds of terrorism to attract Section 21 UAP Act. She has also laid much stress upon the period of custody of the appellant which is since 30.07.2017 and there being no likelihood of the trial being concluded in the near future, the appellant according to her deserves to be released on bail.
7. Per contra, Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned Spl.P.P for the NIA has submitted that the appellant apart from being the brother of Sudhakar who was a member of the Central Committee of CPI (Maoist) is himself an active member of the proscribed organization. He has submitted that the co-accused apprehended along with the appellant had turned approver and as PW 1 he has spelt out the operational details of the appellant. On the basis of the disclosures made by Moola Satyanarayana Reddy various places were raided at Hyderabad and several incriminating articles were recovered. It has been submitted that the trial is at an advanced stage as 17 witnesses have already been examined.
8. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective sides and have also perused the various affidavits filed. The role of the present appellant is depicted in Para 17.17 of the charge sheet which reads as follows:
The judgment established that the burden lies on the accused to show that the case against them is not prima facie true under Section 43-D(5) of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act.
The completion of investigation and prolonged judicial custody are significant factors in determining the entitlement to bail under UAPA. The court emphasized the mandatory requirements under Section....
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 court confirmed that under Section 43D(5) of UAPA, bail cannot be granted if there are reasonable grounds to believe the accusations are prima facie true.
The court established that under the UA(P) Act, particularly Section 43D(5), bail can be denied if there are reasonable grounds to believe the accusations against the accused are prima facie true, em....
The court ruled that, under UAPA, bail cannot be granted where prima facie evidence establishes serious allegations against national security, emphasizing the heightened standard for bail in terroris....
Bail – Delay in conclusion of trial is a relevant consideration for grant of bail.
The main legal point established is that the grant of bail under UAPA requires a prima facie view of the accused's involvement, balancing of various factors, and imposition of stringent conditions to....
The right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is imperative, and prolonged incarceration without the likelihood of a timely trial may warrant the grant of bail.
Bail – Being a member of banned organization is also an offence under UA(P) Act and bail can be declined.
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
