Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
Fuleshwar Gope - Appellant
Versus
Union of India through National Investigating Agency - Respondent
Cr. Appeal (DB) No.767 of 2022
Decided On : 21-03-2024
[NIA Act] - [Bail Application] - [Sections 21(4) of the NIA Act, 2008; Sections 212, 213, 414/34 of IPC; Section 17(ii) of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1908; Sections 13, 17 & 40 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967] - [The court discussed the provisions of the NIA Act and UAPA, emphasizing the stringent criteria for bail under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA, which mandates that bail cannot be granted if there are reasonable grounds to believe the accusations are prima facie true. The court highlighted the gravity of the charges against the appellant, linking him to a terrorist organization and the laundering of extorted funds, which influenced the decision to deny bail.]
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was implicated in a case involving the collection and laundering of extorted money by associates of a terrorist organization, PLFI. The NIA took over the investigation, leading to the appellant's arrest and subsequent bail application after being charged under various sections of the IPC and UAPA.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence presented by the NIA established a prima facie case against the appellant, indicating his involvement in the activities of the PLFI and the laundering of extorted funds. The court emphasized the serious nature of the allegations and the ongoing trial process.
Issues: Whether the appellant could be granted bail under the stringent provisions of the UAPA, considering the nature of the charges and the evidence against him.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA, bail should be denied if there are reasonable grounds to believe the accusations are prima facie true. The court also noted that the standard for assessing bail in UAPA cases is more stringent than in ordinary criminal cases.
Final Decision: The appeal for bail was dismissed, affirming the lower court's decision to deny bail based on the serious nature of the charges and the evidence presented.
JUDGMENT :
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE 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 19.05.2022 passed by the learned A.J.C.-XVI-cum-Special Judge, NIA Ranchi, in Misc. Cr. Application No. 566 of 2022 (Special (NIA) Case No.02 of 2018) corresponding to R.C. No.02/2018/NIA/DLI dated 19.01.2018, arising out of Bero P.S. Case No.67 of 2016 registered for the offence under Sections 212, 213, 414/34 of the I.P.C., Section 17(ii) of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1908 and Sections 13, 17 & 40 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, whereby and whereunder, the prayer for regular bail of the appellant has been rejected.
PROSECUTION CASE & FACTS
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case leading to this Criminal Appeal is that on 10.11.2016, on receiving secret information, the informant namely Mr. Bindeshwari Das, Officer In-charge of Bero P.S. registered an information received regarding the associates of Supremo of PLFI depositing ill-gotten money of crime proceed realized as extortion of levy at SBI, Bero, Ranchi. After having informed his superior authorities and having received their directives, he proceeded for its verification along with other police officials and reserve guards.
3. At about 03.15 PM, he reached along with his team at SBI, Bero, Ranchi, and after surrounding the same waited in ambush. In the meantime, after having seen the police party, 3-4 persons making hue and cry attempted to flee away with bag having articles carrying in their hand, and one of the persons was apprehended from campus of the Bank and three persons were apprehended while boarding Safari Vehicle No. JH01Y 2898. On asking, the persons apprehended disclosed their name as Binod Kumar, Chandra Shekhar Kumar, Nand Kishore Mahto and Mohan Kumar.
4. The Informant conducted search of these persons in presence of independent witnesses and alleged levy/extorted amount of Rs. 25,38,000/-was recovered. The accused persons were unable to show any document and one of the co-accused confessed before the Informant that the PLFI Supremo Dinesh Gope had instructed him on mobile phone after the Central Government Policy of demonetization to deposit the amount. It was further confessed by a co-accused that levied, extorted money was given by PLFI extremist organization for getting it converted white money by depositing in the name of the said petrol pump. Accordingly, all the said articles were seized in presence of independent witnesses and seizure list was prepared.
5. It is alleged that these accused persons were involved in the extortion of levied amount and such ill-gotten money was being converted by hardcore outlawed PLFI extremist people which is dangerous to the national interest and helpful for the extremist organization.
6. Accordingly, a case was registered on the basis of written report made by Sub-Inspector of Bero P.S Mr. Bindeshwari Das, as Bero P.S. Case No.67 of 2016 under Sections 212, 213, 414/34 of the I.P.C., Section 17(ii) of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1908 and Sections 13, 17 & 40 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act against accused persons namely Binod Kumar, Chandra Shekhar Kumar, Nand Kishore Mahto, Mohan Kumar and also against accused Yamuna Prasad and Dinesh Gope.
7. After investigation the state police filed charge-sheet in the aforesaid case vide charge-sheet no. 01 of 2017 against the accused persons namely Binod Kumar, Chandra Shekhar Kumar, Nand Kishore Mahto, Mohan Kumar and further investigation continued against accused Yamuna Prasad and Dinesh Gope.
8. Later on, considering the gravity of the offence, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India vide order dated 16.01.2018 directed National Investigation Agency (NIA), to take over the investigation of the Bero P.S. Case No.67 of 2016.
9. In compliance to the directions of the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, (Order No.F.No.11011/51/2017/IS-IV dat
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.
In cases under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, bail may be denied if there is prima facie evidence of serious criminal involvement linked to national security threats.
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 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.
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
