Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH, JJ.
Vinod Kumar Ganjhu @ Binod Ganjhu @ Binod Kumar Ganjhu – Appellant
Versus
State through National Investigation Agency, Ranchi – Respondent
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 1019 of 2018
Decided On : 08-04-2024
[BAIL] - [UNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT, 1967] - [Sections 414, 384, 386, 387, 120B of IPC; Sections 25(1-b)(a), 26, 35 of Arms Act; Section 17(1)(2) of Criminal Law Amendment Act; Sections 16, 17, 20, 23 of UAPA] - [The court analyzed the provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, particularly Section 43-D(5), which restricts bail for certain offenses. The court interpreted that while statutory restrictions exist, they do not preclude the constitutional right to bail, especially when the accused has been in custody for an extended period without trial. The court emphasized the need for a balance between legislative intent and constitutional rights, ultimately deciding that the appellant's long detention and lack of conclusive evidence warranted bail.]
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, Binod Kumar Ganjhu, was accused of being involved with a terrorist organization, TPC, and extorting money from coal traders. A significant amount of cash was recovered from his residence, leading to charges under various sections of the IPC, Arms Act, Criminal Law Amendment Act, and UAPA. The appellant contended that he was a legitimate businessman and that the cash was not linked to any terrorist activities.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that while serious allegations were made against the appellant, the evidence presented did not conclusively establish his active involvement in terrorist activities. The court noted that other co-accused had been granted bail and that the appellant had been in custody for nearly six years without trial, which was a significant factor in its decision.
Issues: Whether the appellant was entitled to bail given the serious charges against him and the statutory restrictions under the UAPA, particularly in light of his prolonged detention without trial.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the presence of statutory restrictions does not eliminate the constitutional courts' ability to grant bail, especially when prolonged detention without trial is involved. The court emphasized that the quality of evidence must be considered, and the appellant's long incarceration was a compelling reason to grant bail.
Final Decision: The court set aside the previous order denying bail and granted bail to the appellant, subject to usual conditions, while clarifying that its observations were limited to the bail decision and should not influence the trial.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Mr. Balaji Srinivasan, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. A.K. Das, learned Special P. P. for the respondent-NIA.
2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 06.08.2018 passed in connection with Misc. Cr. Application No. 781 of 2018 arising out of Special (NIA) 03/2018 corresponding to RC-06/2018/NIA/DLI arising out of Tandwa P.S. Case No. 02/2016 registered for the offence under Sections 414/384/386/387/120B of the I.P.C., 25 (1-b) (a), 26 & 35 of the Arms Act, Section 17 (1) (2) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act & Sections 16, 17, 20 & 23 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 by which the prayer for bail of the appellant was rejected by the learned Judicial Commissioner cum Special Judge, NIA, Ranchi.
3. A written report was submitted by Ramdhari Singh, SubInspector posted at Simaria Police Station to the effect that on 10.01.2016, a secret information was received by the Superintendent of Police that in Amrapali and Magadh Coal Area, Tandwa some local persons have formed an association which is related to the banned extremist organization outfit - TPC. The members of said organization were extracting levy from the coal traders and D.O. holders by creating a fear in the name of the extremists of T.P.C. - Gopal Singh Bhokta @ Brajesh Ganjhu, Mukesh Ganjhu, Kohramjee, Akramanjee @ Ravindra Ganjhu, Anischay Ganjhu, Bhikan Ganjhu, Deepu Singh @ Bhikan and Bindu Ganjhu.
4. It has been alleged that if any of the businessmen hesitate to pay levy, they were threatened by members of such organization and are also subjected to hardships. In order to verify the truthfulness or otherwise of such information, a raiding party was constituted on the orders of the Superintendent of Police, Chatra. A raid was conducted in the house of the President of the Association, Binod Kumar Ganjhu and from under his bed as well as from his almirah Rs. 91,75,890/- cash was recovered. No satisfactory explanation could be submitted by Binod Kumar Ganjhu with respect to recovery of such a huge amount of cash. From the house of Binod Kumar Ganjhu, two persons were also apprehended who disclosed their names as Birbal Ganjhu and Munesh Ganjhu and on search of their persons, a loaded mauser pistol was recovered from the possession of Birbal Ganjhu while from the possession of Munesh Ganjhu, a countrymade pistol and two live cartridges were recovered. Both have confessed of being associated with the T.P.C. organization. Binod Kumar Ganjhu had disclosed that he is the President of Magadh Sanchalan Samiti and the levy collected is sent to Gopal Singh Bhokta @ Brajesh Ganjhu and thereafter it is distributed between Mukesh Ganjhu, Kohramjee, Akramanjee @ Ravindra Ganjhu, Anischay Ganjhu, Bhikan Ganjhu, Deepu Singh @ Bhikan. He has disclosed that Bindu Ganjhu is a member of Amrapali Sanchalan Samiti who collects levy on behalf of TPC and since he is at present in jail, the collection of levy is being done by Pradip Ram. On such information, a raid was conducted in the house of Pradip Ram and from under his bed as well as from an almirah Rs. 57,57,710/- in cash was recovered. No satisfactory explanation could be furnished by Pradip Ram with respect to such recovery of cash.
Based on the aforesaid allegations, Tandwa P.S. Case No. 2 of 2016 was instituted for the offences under Sections 414, 384, 386, 387, 120 (B) I.P.C. Sections 25 (1-b) (a)/26/35 of the Arms Act and Section 17 (1) (2) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act against Binod Ganjhu, Munesh Ganjhu, Pradip Ram, Birbal Ganjhu, Gopal Singh Bhokta @ Brajesh Ganjhu, Mukesh Ganjhu, Kohramjee, Akramanjee @ Ravindra Ganjhu, Anischay Ganjhu, Deepu Singh @ Bhikan, Bindu Ganjhu and Bhikan Ganjhu.
5. In course of investigation Sections 16, 17, 20 & 23 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as ‘UAP Act’) were added. Since the offence involved is a scheduled offence in exercise of the power conferred under Section 6 (5) read with Section 8 of the Na
The court established that statutory bail restrictions under the UAPA must be balanced with constitutional rights, particularly the right to a speedy trial, and that prolonged detention without trial....
The court established that prolonged pre-trial detention could warrant bail, despite statutory restrictions.
The judgment underscores the principle that prolonged pre-trial detention without substantial evidence of involvement in terrorist activities can infringe upon constitutional rights, warranting the g....
The court ruled that prolonged custody and unresolved trial mandates bail consideration, even in the face of stringent laws under UAPA.
The NIA has the power to investigate cases under the NIA Act, and the court must consider the prima facie case against the accused, the length of custody, and the likelihood of trial conclusion when ....
Long periods of incarceration may warrant bail consideration, emphasizing constitutional rights over statutory restrictions where trials are unduly delayed.
Prolonged pre-trial detention without progress warrants reconsideration of bail, balancing statutory restrictions with constitutional rights to speediness in trial.
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
