Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI, JJ.
Mangal Munda S/o Ato Munda – Appellant
Versus
Union of India through National Investigation Agency – Respondent
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 1159 of 2022
Decided On : 12-03-2024
(A) National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 - Section 21(4) - Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 - Sections 16, 20, 38 & 39 - Appeal against rejection of bail - The appellant was accused of aiding a terrorist organization and supplying materials for IEDs used in attacks against security forces - The court emphasized the serious nature of the allegations and the prima facie case established against the appellant - The bail application was dismissed based on the gravity of the charges and the provisions of the UAPA. (Paras 10, 61, 70)
(B) Bail - The court reiterated that the standard for granting bail under UAPA is stringent, requiring a prima facie case against the accused - The court must consider the seriousness of the allegations and the potential impact on national security. (Paras 40, 70)
Facts of the case:
The appellant was accused of supplying iron pipes used in IED blasts that resulted in the deaths of police personnel, with the NIA establishing a prima facie case against him based on the charge-sheet.
Findings of Court:
The court found no merit in the appeal, affirming the lower court's decision to deny bail due to the serious nature of the allegations and the prima facie evidence against the appellant.
Issues: The main issues included whether the appellant's actions constituted a prima facie case under UAPA and the implications of his association with a banned organization.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the appellant's involvement with a terrorist organization and the gravity of the charges warranted the denial of bail, emphasizing the need for national security considerations.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
ORDER :
I.A. No. 1487 of 2024
1. The instant application has been filed for condoning the delay of 10 days in filing the appeal though not under Section 21(5) of the NIA Act but under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the said Interlocutory Application has been filed due to inadvertence since before filing of the instant application, one Interlocutory Application being I.A. No. 10052 of 2022 was filed, hence submission has been made that the instant Interlocutory Application is not being pressed.
3. Considering the aforesaid submission, the instant Interlocutory Application is dismissed as not pressed.
I.A. No. 10052 of 2022
4. At the outset, learned counsel for the appellant has sought for leave of this Court to make necessary correction, in the provision of law under which the instant application has been filed, by deleting ‘5 of the Limitation Act’ and in place thereof inserting ‘21(5) of the N.I.A. Act’.
5. Considering the nature of prayer, let necessary correction be done by him in course of day in the instant Interlocutory Application.
6. The instant application has been filed for condonation of delay of 10 day in filing the appeal.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
8. In view of reason assigned in the application, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned.
9. Accordingly, I.A. No. 10052 of 2022 stands disposed of.
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 1159 of 2022
10. The instant appeal preferred under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 is directed against the order dated 16.08.2022 passed by the AJC-XVI-cum-Spl. Judge, NIA, Ranchi in Misc. Cr. Application No. 1544 of 2022, (Special (NIA) Case No. 02/2021) corresponding to R.C. No. 02/2021/NIA/RNC, arising out of Toklo P.S. Case No. 09 of 2021 registered for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 120B, 121/121A, 307, 302, 333 and 353 of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.), Section 3/4 of Explosive Substances Act, Section 17 of the C.L.A. Act 1908 and under Sections 16, 20, 38 & 39 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967, whereby and whereunder, the prayer for regular bail of the appellant has been rejected.
Prosecution case and Facts
11. The brief facts of the prosecution case leading to this Criminal Appeal is that the superintendent of Police Chaibasa, West Singhbhum, received information from various sources regarding the movement of Anal Da @ Toofan Da @ Patriram Manjhi and Maharaj Pramanik @ Raj Pramanik, both senior cadres of Central committee of CPI Maoist, along with other cadres of their groups were roaming in the hilly area of Lanji Mountain, under Toklo Police Station, District- West Singhbhum and planning to execute a big incident in that area and disrupt the development. Accordingly on direction of Superintendent of Police, Chaibasa and senior officials, one special operation was launched from the Darkada (Jharjhara) base camp by the troops of Jharkhand Jaguar AG-II and C/197 CRPF BN.
12. It is further alleged that when informant along with search parties reached near slope of Lanji Hill, the troops of Jharkhand Jaguar AG II were on front and leading the operation and troops of CRPF/ 197 BN was moving behind the Jharkhand Jaguar AG-II. Suddenly, at about 8.30 hours a heavy blast took place from the left flank approx. 100-150 meters on the hill from the base of Lanji Hill. In retaliation to the blast six rounds were fired by Constable Vijay Yadav of Jharkhand Jaguar towards the hill for his self-defence when the troops heard the sound of blast all the operation team took position for a while.
13. In the meantime, Section Commander of the Jharkhand Jaguar informed through wireless set that an IED blast has taken place and five jawans of his team and one Jawan of CRPF got injured and out of them two become martyred and rest injured were rescued to Medica hospital Ranchi. Later on, one head constable also attained martyrdom after reaching Medica hospital, Ranchi, Jharkhand.
14. Accordingly, a c
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 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 affirmed that bail under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act requires prima facie evidence of guilt, emphasizing the severity of charges against the appellant and ongoing trial facts.
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....
(1) Regular bail – Issue of national integrity is also to be taken care of so as to maintain balance.(2) Precedent – Ratio of judgment is to be applied on the basis of factual aspect involved in each....
Bail – Being a member of banned organization is also an offence under UA(P) Act and bail can be declined.
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 main legal point established is that the grant of bail under UAPA requires a prima facie view of the accused's involvement, balancing of various factors, and imposition of stringent conditions to....
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
