Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, NAVNEET KUMAR, JJ.
Prasanta Basu @ Prashant Bose @ Kishan Da @ Manish @ Budha – Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand - Respondent
Cr. Appeal (DB) No.1342 of 2022, Cr. Appeal (DB) No.1205 of 2022
Decided on : 06-12-2023
National Investigation Agency Act - Bail Rejection - Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC, Section 17 of C.L.A. Act, Sections 10/13 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were apprehended in connection with a case registered for offenses under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, and Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. They filed bail petitions which were rejected, leading to the present appeals.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the accusations against the appellants were prima facie true based on the evidence collected during the investigation. The court also noted the appellants' involvement in a banned terrorist organization and their criminal antecedents, leading to the dismissal of the appeals.
Issues: The main issue was whether the appellants were eligible for bail considering the seriousness of the charges and the evidence collected during the investigation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied Section 43D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, which mandates that a person shall not be released on bail if there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusations made are prima facie true. The court also considered the appellants' criminal antecedents and the potential influence on the trial if released on bail.
Final Decision: The court found no merit in the appeals and dismissed them, upholding the rejection of the bail applications.
JUDGMENT :
Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
1. The instant appeals preferred under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 are directed against the orders dated 11.07.2022 passed in B.P. No.160 of 2022 (Prasanta Basu @ Prashant Bose @ Kishan Da @ Manish @ Budha) and B.P. No.161 of 2022 (Shila Marandi @ Shila Hansda @ Shilla Hansda) by Principal District & Sessions Judge, Seraikella and against order dated 22.09.2022 passed in B.P. No.220 of 2022 (Rupesh Kumar Singh) by the District and Additional Sessions Judge-II, Seraikella in connection with Kandra P.S. Case No.67 of 2021 registered for the offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of the I.P.C. Section 17 of the C.L.A. Act and Sections 10 and 13 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, whereby and whereunder, the prayers’ for regular bail of the appellants have been rejected.
2. Since these criminal appeals are preferred in connection with the same case (Kandra P.S. Case No.67 of 2021) therefore, these appeals are decided with the common order.
Facts
3. The brief facts of the prosecution case leading to these Criminal Appeals are like that on basis of written report of one Sanjay Kumar Singh, S.D.P.O. Chandil wherein it has been alleged that on 12.11.2021 at about 05:30 hours informant received an information through senior police official wherein it has been informed that one secret information has been received by the senior official that some Superior Naxal leader of MCC are coming on a Scorpio vehicle for organizing a meeting with their associates in Kolhan Area. On the basis of such information informant constituted several raiding teams and they have been instructed by the informant for checking the vehicles.
4. It is further alleged that at about 09:30 ?.?. informant and other police personnel saw a Scorpio vehicle bearing registration no. JH-22E-2866 was coming towards Giddibera Tol Plaza from Chandil and when the informant tried to stop the said vehicle but the driver of the said vehicle tried to flee away but same has been stopped by the informant with the help of other police personnel. It was found that 5 persons and a lady were sitting in the said vehicle and they have been apprehended by the police personnel and thereafter a search was made and in course of the search two SSD Card, One pen drive and cash of Rs. 1,51,000/-have been recovered from the possession of the accused persons and accordingly all the aforesaid things were seized and seizure list was prepared.
5. It is further alleged that on interrogation they disclosed their name as Prashanta Bose @ Kishan Da @ Manish @ Buda, Shila Marandi @ Shila Hansda, Raju Tudu @ Nikhil @ Bapu, Birendra Hansda@ Jitendra, Krishna Bagda@ Heven and Guru Charan Bodra. Accused namely Prashanta Bose during interrogation stated that he is the member of BHAKPA MAOBADI Polit Buero and in-charge of Regional Beuro. Further accused Shila Marandi stated that she is member of central committee of BHAKPA MAOBADI and they were going to attend a meeting at Kolhan area for the purpose to commit some Naxal activities. They have been further disclosed that in the seized SSD cards and pen drive some data regarding the plan of Naxal Activities and some other information have been stored.
6. The appellants namely Prashanta Bose @ Kishan Da @ Manish @ Buda, Shila Marandi @ Shila Hansda (Cr. Appeal (DB) No.1205 of 2022) and other accused persons have been apprehended from the place and taken into custody by the police.
7. On the basis of aforesaid written report Kandra P.S. Case No. 67 of 2021, registered for the offence under sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of Indian Penal Code, section 17 of Criminal Law (Amendment) Act and sections 10/13 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.
8. During the investigation name of the another accused/appellant (Appellant in Cr. Appeal (DB) No.1342 of 2022) namely Rupesh Kumar Singh was transpired on the basis of video clipping found in the aforesaid seized SSD Card and accordingly he was taken in to c
AI
The judgment establishes the principle that bail may be rejected if there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusations made are prima facie true, especially in cases involving serious of....
Bail – Being a member of banned organization is also an offence under UA(P) Act and bail can be declined.
The court established that involvement with a banned terrorist organization and the collection of levies for such groups constitutes serious offenses under the UA(P) Act, warranting denial of bail wh....
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 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 upheld the denial of bail under UAPA, emphasizing the serious nature of the allegations and the prima facie case against the appellant, which posed a threat to national security.
The court established that for bail applications under the UAP Act, the prosecution must provide reasonable grounds for believing the accusations are prima facie true, and that mere membership in a b....
The existence of a prima facie case, the gravity of the offence, the severity of punishment, the antecedent of the appellant, and the possibility of the appellant impeding the trial once he is releas....
The court established that a prima facie case under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act requires a lighter evidentiary burden, allowing for bail denial where reasonable grounds for believing acc....
The court upheld the denial of bail under the UAP Act, emphasizing the serious nature of the charges and the prima facie evidence against the appellant.
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
