IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD, JJ.
Sajjan Kumar Bhuiya S/o Late Kameshwar Bhuiya – Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand – Respondent
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 2144 of 2023
Decided On : 06-02-2024
[NIA Act] - [Bail Application] - [Sections 21(4), 6(5), 8 of NIA Act, Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 353, 414 of IPC; Sections 25(1-A), 25(1-B)a, 26, 27, 35 of Arms Act; Sections 10, 13, 14, 15, 18 of UA(P) Act; Sections 3, 4, 5 of Explosive Substances Act; Section 17 of CLA Act] - [The court discussed the provisions of the NIA Act, particularly Section 21(4) regarding appeals against bail orders, and Section 43D(5) of the UA(P) Act, which restricts bail if there are reasonable grounds to believe the accusations are prima facie true. The court emphasized the importance of the NIA's findings and the serious nature of the charges against the appellant, ultimately concluding that the evidence supported the denial of bail.]
Fact of the Case:
The appeal was filed against the rejection of a bail application for Sajan Kumar Bhuiyan, accused of being involved with the CPI (Maoist), a banned terrorist organization. The NIA's investigation revealed Bhuiyan's active support to the organization, including providing shelter and logistics to its members. The case involved multiple serious charges under various acts, including the IPC and the UA(P) Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the NIA had established a prima facie case against Bhuiyan, supported by evidence of his involvement with the CPI (Maoist) and the recovery of incriminating materials from his possession. The court noted that the appellant's actions constituted serious offenses under the UA(P) Act, justifying the denial of bail.
Issues: Whether the appellant could be granted bail considering the serious nature of the charges and the evidence presented by the NIA, particularly in light of Section 43D(5) of the UA(P) Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that under Section 43D(5) of the UA(P) Act, bail should not be granted if there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusations are prima facie true. The court emphasized the need for a lighter standard of proof at the bail stage compared to the trial stage, focusing on the evidence presented by the NIA.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, affirming the lower court's decision to deny bail to the appellant based on the serious nature of the charges and the evidence indicating his involvement with a terrorist organization.
ORDER :
Prayer:
1. The instant appeal filed under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, is directed against the order dated 13.10.2023 passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-XVI-cum-Special Judge, NIA, Ranchi in Misc. Criminal Application No. 2186 of 2023 arising out of Special NIA Case No. 03 of 2022, by which the prayer for regular bail of the appellants in connection with R.C. Case No. 02/2022/NIA/RNC arising out of Lohardaga Peshrar P.S. Case No. 5 of 2022 registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 353 and 414 of IPC; under Sections 25(1-A), 25(1-B)a, 26, 27 and 35 of the Arms Act; under Section 10, 13, 14, 15 and 18 of UA(P) Act; under Section 3/4/5 of Explosive Substances Act and under Section 17 of CLA Act, has been rejected.
Facts:
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case leading to this Criminal Appeal is that, an information was received by Jharkhand Police that, Regional Commander of CPI (Maoist), terrorist organization, a proscribed Ravindra Ganjhu along with his active cadres of CPI (Maoist), Balram Oraon, Muneshwar Ganjhu, Balak Ganjhu, Dinesh Nagheshia, Aghanu Ganjhu, Lajim Ansari, Markush Nagheshia, Sanjay Nagheshia, Sheela Kherwar, Lalita Devi, and 45-50 other cadres had assembled in the forest area of Bulbul and were planning to execute an incident against the security forces and in the Bauxite mines area and there after upon getting information they said OPS plan was chalked out and operation team consisting of officers/officials of Cobra-203/209, Jharkhand Jaguar, CRPF and district Police were made and an extensive search operation 08.02.2022. was carried out from 08.02.2022.
That operation, in continuation of above search 17.02.2022, on based on the information Operation Plan Number-48 was made out which consists of three search team's consisting of Local Police, Cobra and IRB. They proceeded towards the Bahabar Jungle. On their way one search team was ambushed and was fired upon indiscriminately by the CPI (Maoist). The search party retaliated the fire in self- defense. On being dominated by police, the Maoists fled in different directions, taking advantage of the dense forest. A search was conducted following the incident. During the search arms, ammunition and other materials i.e. 5.56 MM Insas rifle-01, Country made pistol-01, 5.56 mm rounds of Insas-86 rounds. Rounds-328 rounds, SLR Rounds-1123 rounds, SLR Magazine-11, Insas Magazine-04, Insas LMG magazine-02, huge quantity of IED making materials, Maoist related documents and diaries and Naxal dresses were recovered.
When the search was continued on the next day i.e. on 19.02.2022, the team found 07-08 Pithu (back-pack) bags. During the thorough search of the bags incriminating items were recovered and seized. Further, on 20.02.2022, as per operational plan number 51, additional search teams were sent to conduct search and apprehend armed cadres of CPI (Maoist) with the co-ordination of previous search team, incriminating items i.e. Naxal related documents and diaries, Unistar Jungle shoes, Naxal uniform, letter pad (05), note book (10) & daily need items were recovered and seized.
Further, on 21.02.2022, search team number 2 found one suspicious person at village HarkattaToli under PS-Peshrar. On being asked he revealed his name as Sanjay Nagesia (A-9), S/o Late Jagmohan Nagesia, Vill-Korgo, PS-Bagdu, District-Lohardaga. During his personal search Naxal Pamphlet, diaries (08), IED (01), Naxal dress and IED making materials were seized. Suspect Sanjay Nagesia was formally arrested. The explosive items were disposed on the spot by the BDDS team.
The police team chased the Maoist and apprehended three persons. During interrogation, they revealed that one of their associates had fled towards Bhusakhad One (Kisko). person namely Markush Nagesia was searched and one grey coloured Pitthu (back-pack) bag, containing one combat dress, 15 rounds 5.56 mm live ammunition and book containing Naxal literature was found from hi
Arup Bhuyan vs. State of Assam and Another
National Investigation Agency vs. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali
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....
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 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 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 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 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 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 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 completion of investigation and prolonged judicial custody are significant factors in determining the entitlement to bail under UAPA. The court emphasized the mandatory requirements under Section....
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.