IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, RAJESH KUMAR, JJ.
Binod Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Union of India through National Investigating Agency – Respondent
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 201 of 2020
Decided on : 03-10-2023
Bail - Criminal Conspiracy - Indian Penal Code, Sections 212, 213, 414, 34; Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, Sections 13, 17, 40; Criminal Law Amendment Act - The court discussed the provisions of the Indian Penal Code, Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, and Criminal Law Amendment Act in the context of criminal conspiracy and the bail application. The court emphasized the need for a prima facie case and the right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the appellants' alleged involvement in a criminal conspiracy related to extorting and depositing money, leading to charges under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. The National Investigation Agency (NIA) had taken over the investigation, and a supplementary charge-sheet was submitted against the appellants.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellants had been in custody for over three years and eight months, with the trial yet to be concluded. Considering the period of incarceration and the unlikelihood of the trial being completed soon, the court allowed the appeal and directed the release of the appellants on bail.
Issues: The primary issue was the grant of bail to the appellants in the context of their alleged involvement in a criminal conspiracy and the charges under the Indian Penal Code and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the appellants' prolonged incarceration, the unlikelihood of the trial being completed soon, and the right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision: The court set aside the previous order and directed the release of the appellants on bail, with a requirement for their physical presence before the trial court on each date until the conclusion of the trial.
JUDGMENT :
Heard Mr. A. K. Kashyap, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant nos. 1, 2 & 3, Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, learned senior counsel for the respondent no. 4 and Mr. A. K. Das, learned Special P.P. appearing for the respondent - NIA.
2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 29.01.2020 passed by the learned Judicial Commissioner cum Special Judge, N.I.A. at Ranchi in connection with Special (N.I.A.) Case No. 2 of 2018 Vide RC-02/2018/NIA/DLI arising out of Bero P. S. Case No. 67 of 2016 registered for the offences punishable under sections 212, 213, 414, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 13, 17 & 40 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and Section 17 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act whereby and whereunder the prayer for bail of the appellant has been rejected .
3. The prosecution case arises out of a written report of Bindeshwari Das, Officer-in-Charge of Bero P.S. to the effect that a secret information was received on 10.11.2016 that the supremo of PLFI for the purpose of depositing his ill-gotten money of proceeds of crime realized as extortion had sent it through his associates for depositing in the Bank account for converting into white through a Safari vehicle bearing registration no. JH01Y-2898 to SBI, Bero Branch. After making a station diary entry and on the basis of the directives of the superior authorities the informant along with other Police personnel went to SBI, Bero Branch for verification of the said information. It is alleged that at about 3:15P.M. the informant and his associates waited in ambush and in the meantime having seen the Police party 3-4 persons attempted to flee away and while one of the persons was apprehended from the campus of the Bank three other persons were apprehended while boarding on the Safari vehicle bearing registration no. JH01Y2898. On query the apprehended accused persons disclosed their name as Binod Kumar, Chandra Shekhar Kumar, Nand Kishore Mahto and Mohan Kumar. A search was conducted in presence of independent witnesses and one bag having 16 bundles of currency note of Rs. 1,000/- total amounting to Rs. 16,00,000/- was recovered from the possession of Binod Kumar and a mobile phone was also recovered from him. It has been alleged that an amount of Rs. 38,000/- was recovered from the possession of co-accused Chandra Shekhar Kumar along with deposit slips of various dates and one deposit slip of Rs. 16,00,000/- along with two mobile phones. It has also been alleged that total currency of Rs. 9,00,000/- was recovered from the possession of co-accused Nand Kishore Mahto and two mobile phones were recovered from Mohan Kumar @ Rajesh Kumar. None of the apprehended accused persons could show any documents with respect to the recovered currency notes and co-accused Binod Kumar had confessed that PLFI Supremo Dinesh Gope had instructed him over mobile to deposit the extorted amount of Rs. 25,38,000/- in the name of the Petrol Pump of co-accused Chandra Shekhar Kumar. All the articles were seized in presence of independent witnesses and a seizure list was also prepared.
Based on the aforesaid allegations Bero P.S. Case No. 67/2016 was instituted for the offences punishable u/s 212, 213, 414, 34 of the I.P.C., Section 13, 17, 40 of the UA(P) Act, 1967 and Section 17(ii) of the CLA Act. On completion of investigation charge-sheet was submitted against Vinod Kumar @ Binod Kumar, Chandra Shekhar Kumar, Nand Kishore Mahto and Mohan Kumar @ Rajesh Kumar for the offences punishable u/s 212, 213, 414and 34 of the I.P.C., Section 13, 17 and 40 of the UA(P) Act, 1967 and Section 17(ii) of the CLA Act.
Consequent to the order of the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs vide Order No. 11011/51/2017-IS, IV dated 16.01.2018, the National Investigation Agency had taken over the investigation of the case and consequently the First Information Report was re-registered as RC-02/2018/NIA/DLI. In course of investigation a supplementary charge-sheet was submitted b
Gurcharan Singh v. State (UT of Delhi)
Jayendra Saraswathi Swamigal v. State of T.N.
Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan
NIA v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali
Ranjitsing Brahmajeetsing Sharma v. State of Maharashtra
Union of India Vs. K. N. Nazeeb” reported in (2021) 3 SCC 713
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.
(1) Bail application – Question of grant of bail concern both liberty of individuals undergoing criminal prosecution as well as interest of criminal justice system in ensuring that those who commit c....
The court established that under the UAPA, the presumption against granting bail is strong when there are reasonable grounds to believe the accusations against the accused are prima facie true, refle....
The court reiterated that under the UAPA, bail is the exception, emphasizing the prima facie strength of allegations against the accused involved in financing a terrorist organization.
Prolonged detention without trial violates constitutional rights; bail may be granted considering the length of custody and co-accused's bail.
The court emphasized the importance of prima facie evidence, the right to a speedy trial, and the lack of incriminating material in the possession of the accused.
The court reaffirmed that anticipatory bail is not maintainable under Section 43D(4) of the UAPA in cases involving serious charges of terrorism, emphasizing the need for custodial interrogation in s....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.