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 and delay in trial in granting bail.

JUDGMENT :

(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.)

As directed by Hon'ble the Chief Justice, High Court of Jharkhand, this matter has been placed before this Bench for hearing.

2. This is second attempt by Santosh Oraon to seek bail in RC-01/2018/NIA/DLI.

3. The first attempt by the appellant to seek bail in the aforementioned case was declined on 28th September 2021 by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court.

4. In Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 540 of 2020, this Court made the following observations while declining bail to the appellant:

“10.We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and taken note of the materials relied upon by them from the pleadings on record. From the conspectus of facts and the materials produced by the prosecution, as reflected through the supplementary charge sheet and taken note of by the learned Special Judge, N.I.A. Ranchi, in the impugned order, it appears that the appellant was involved in collecting unlawful money in huge amount from members of the banned CPI (M) extremist organization and investing it in the name of CPI (M) co-operatives of M/s Petron Minerals and Metal Ltd. as also in M/s Vikash Mutual Benefits Nidhi Ltd. The details of the invested money pertaining to accused persons such as Chhotu Kherwar, investment done by the appellant and Roshan Oraon (A-4) in the name of other CPI (Maoist) members have been culled out in the form of a tabular chart in the supplementary charge sheet dated 14.09.2018, Annexure-6 to the memo of appeal, pertaining to the role of the present appellant. Appellant was found to have deposited the amounts pertaining to accused No. 2 Chhotu Kherwar and other maoist members, as described in the chart under para 17.6 of the supplementary charge sheet. These activities were intended to support the activities of proscribed terrorist organization CPI (M) during demonetization. These amounts were shown to have been earned through extortion/levy collection. The materials collected by the Investigating Agency do lead to an opinion that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against the appellant is prima facie true within the meaning of Section 43-D (5) of the UA (P) Act, 1967. The learned Special Judge, NIA, Act has considered the entire materials placed on record with proper application of mind and rightly refused to release the appellant on bail, as no fresh grounds were made out.

11. Besides that, the case of the appellant does not stand on similar footing with that of Sudesh Kedia (supra) who was found to be carrying on transport business in the area of the banned TPC organization and had to pay money for smooth running of his business, whereas the other accused members were found to have been systematically collecting extortion amount from businessman in the concerned areas of operation.

12. In the present case, as has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent N.I.A., there are about 80 witnesses to be examined and three protected witnesses have already been examined. The examination of the witnesses and trial had got interrupted due to prolong restrictions in the functioning of the district courts during the pandemic, which has now been substantially relaxed. The trial has resumed. Appellant has remained in custody for about 3 ½ years, only till now, and as such on facts, the case of the present appellant is distinguishable from that of K.A. Najeeb (supra) relied upon by learned counsel for the appellant.

13.Taking all these facts and circumstances into consideration, this court is of the view that the impugned order does not suffer from any such error or illegality in application of the principles attached to grant of bail under Section 43-D(5) of the UA (P) Act, 1967 by the Special Judge, NIA, Ranchi. We are of the considered opinion that no grounds has been made out for interference in the matter. Instant appeal is accordingly dismissed.”

5. Balumath (Latehar) PS Case No. 161 of 2016 was registered on 21st December 2016