Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, JJ.
Kunwar Ganjhu, son of Rambarath Ganjhu – Appellant
Versus
Union of India through National Investigation Agency - Respondent
Cr. Appeal (DB) No.358 of 2023
Decided on : 15-01-2024
NIA Act - Bail Application - Sections 21(4) of the NIA Act, 2008; Sections 386, 411, 120B of IPC; Section 17 of CLA Act; Sections 13, 16, 17, 20, 21, 23 of UA(P) Act - The court discussed the provisions of the NIA Act and the UA(P) Act, emphasizing the gravity of the offenses related to terrorism and unlawful activities. It highlighted that under Section 43D(5) of the UA(P) Act, bail cannot be granted if there are reasonable grounds to believe the accusations are prima facie true. The court interpreted the definitions of 'terrorist organization' and 'terrorist act' under the UA(P) Act, establishing that the appellant's actions fell within these definitions, thus influencing the decision to deny bail.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, Kunwar Ganjhu, was arrested along with two others for allegedly collecting a levy of Rs. 5 lakhs for a Maoist organization. They were apprehended after being observed by police while attempting to deliver the money to a Maoist leader. The police recovered cash and a letter from the appellant, linking him to the CPI (Maoist) organization, which is a banned terrorist group.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant was actively involved with the CPI (Maoist) and had a clear understanding of the unlawful nature of his actions. The evidence presented, including confessions and recovered items, established a prima facie case against him, justifying the denial of bail.
Issues: Whether the appellant could be granted bail under the provisions of the NIA Act and the UA(P) Act, considering the nature of the charges and the evidence against him.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that under Section 43D(5) of the UA(P) Act, bail should not be granted if there are reasonable grounds to believe the accusations are prima facie true. The court emphasized the importance of the appellant's connections to a banned terrorist organization and the serious nature of the charges against him.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the order rejecting the bail application was upheld, with the court finding no merit in the appellant's arguments for release.
JUDGMENT :
Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
1. The instant appeal preferred under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 is directed against the order dated 13.02.2023 passed by the AJC-XVI-cum-Spl. Judge, NIA, Ranchi in Misc. Cr. Application No.183 of 2023 [Special (NIA) Case No.03 of 2020], corresponding to R.C. No.38 of 2021/NIA/DLI, arising out of Chandwa P.S. Case No.04 of 2020 registered for the offence under Sections 386, 411 and 120B of the I.P.C., Section 17 of the C.L.A. Act and Sections 13, 16, 17, 20, 21 & 23 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, whereby and whereunder, the prayer for regular bail of the appellant has been rejected.
Facts
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case leading to this Criminal Appeal is that on 05.01.2020, Inspector cum SHO of Chandwa police station had received a reliable information that three persons came at Budhbazar, Chandwa by a motor-cycle bearing registration number JH 01 CW773 after collecting levy from a contractor and further proceeding to deliver the amount to Maoist Ravindra Ganjhu (A-4).
3. On receipt of the said information, the SHO along with his staff reached near Shiv Mandir, Budhbazar and noticed that 03 persons were going towards stadium by a motorcycle bearing registration number JH-01-CW773. It is alleged that after seeing the police party, all three persons tried to escape but they were chased and apprehended by the police and on enquiry, the persons revealed their names as Rajesh Kumar Ganjhu (A-2), Baijnath Ganjhu (A-1) and Kunwar Ganjhu (A-3) the appellant herein.
4. It is alleged that when search of the aforesaid persons was conducted in the presence of two independent witnesses, cash amounting to Rs. 05 (five) lakhs, a pair of new clothes, a letter of Maoist Ravindra Ganjhu (A-4) addressed to Sonu Singh (A5) and other documents etc. were recovered from their possession.
5. It is further stated that during preliminary examination, these persons disclosed that, Ravindra Ganjhu (A-4) called them to meet at Beerjangha forest, gave a letter with direction to deliver it to contractor Sonu Singh (A-5) and collect money of Rs. 5 lakhs from Sonu Singh (A-5).
6. Accordingly, they went to Sonu Singh's house, collected cash of Rs. 5 lakhs from Sonu Singh (A-5) by producing the letter of Maoist Ravindra Ganjhu (A-4) and delivered the cash to Maoist Ravindra Ganjhu (A-4) in the forest. They admitted that they are the couriers of terrorist organization CPI (Maoist) and involved in collection of levies and passing police information to Maoist cadres.
7. Accordingly, a case was registered as FIR No.04/2020 dated 05.01.2020 at PS Chandwa, District Latehar, Jharkhand under sections 386, 411, 120B of the Indian Penal Code(IPC), section 17 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act (CLA Act) and sections 13, 16, 17, 20, 21 and 23 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, (UA(P) Act) against Rajesh Kumar Ganjhu (A2), Baijnath Ganjhu (A-1), Kunwar Ganjhu (A-3), Ravindra Ganjhu (A-4) and Sonu Singh (A-5).
8. After investigation, the Jharkhand state police had filed charge-sheet vide Final Report No.59/2020 on 02.07.2020 under sections 386, 411 and 120B of the IPC, section 17 of the CL(A) Act and sections 13, 16, 17, 20, 21 and 23 of the UA(P), Act against 03 arrested accused (i) Rajesh Ganjhu (A-2), (ii) Baijnath Ganjhu (A-1) and (iii) Kunwar Ganjhu (A-3) and cognizance of the offence was taken on 16.07 2020. Further investigation of the case was continued by the state police against other absconding accused.
9. Later on, the Central Government had received information about registration of case being FIR No.04 2020 dated 05.01.2020 at PS Chandwa, District Latehar, Jharkhand under sections 386, 411, 120-B of the IPC, section 17 of the CL(A) Act and sections 13, 16, 17, 20, 21 and 23 of the UA(P) Act 1967 relating to arrest of 03 persons, namely, Rajesh Kumar Ganjhu (A-2), Baijnath Ganjhu (A-1) and the appellant herein, Kunwar Ganjhu (A-3) and seizure of cash Rs.5 Lakh, from th
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....
Bail – Being a member of banned organization is also an offence under UA(P) Act and bail can be declined.
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 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....
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.
The court established that under the UAPA, particularly Section 43D(5), the standard for denying bail is based on whether the accusations are prima facie true, which requires a careful examination of....
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....
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
