SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Jhk) 800

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Rongon Mukhopadhyay, Sanjay Prasad, JJ.
Navinbhai Jayantibhai Patel @ Navin Patel son of Late Jayantibhai Jivrajbhai Patel @ Jayantibahi Jivraj Bhai Patel - Appellant
Vs.
Union of India - Respondent
Cr. Appeal. (DB) No. 1474 of 2023
Decided On : 01-10-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Balaji Srinivasan, Mr. Niranjan Kumar, Mrs. Nirupama, Advocate
For the NIA : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Spl.P.P.

Delay in trial does not justify bail in serious offenses when a prima facie case is established against the accused.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 212, 213, 414, 34 - Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 - Sections 13, 17, 40 - Criminal Law Amendment Act - Section 17 - Bail application rejected - Appellant involved in extortion and money laundering for extremist organization - Evidence of direct involvement and financial transactions presented - No recovery from appellant, but substantial allegations made - Trial nearing conclusion. (Paras 1, 2, 17, 41)

(B) Bail - Grant of bail in serious offenses - Delay in trial not sufficient for bail - Prima facie case established against appellant - Evidence against appellant includes witness testimonies and financial transactions - Appellant's role in securing surrender of prime accused noted. (Paras 38, 41)

Facts of the case:
The appellant was arrested in connection with a case involving extortion and money laundering for an extremist organization, with substantial amounts of money recovered from co-accused. The appellant claims no incriminating evidence against him, but the prosecution argues otherwise. (Paras 2, 3, 4)

Findings of Court:
The court found that the evidence presented established a prima facie case against the appellant, justifying the rejection of bail. The trial is expected to conclude soon. (Paras 41, 43)

Issues: The main issues were whether the appellant's bail application should be granted considering the seriousness of the charges and the evidence against him. (Paras 1, 41)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the delay in trial does not warrant bail in serious offenses, especially when a prima facie case is established against the accused. (Paras 38, 41)

Result: Criminal Appeal dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjay Prasad, J.

The present criminal appeal has been preferred against the order dated 30.06.2023 passed by Sri Madhuresh Kumar Verma, learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-XVI-cum-Special Judge, NIA, Ranchi in Special (NIA) Case No. 02 of 2018, corresponding to R.C. No. 02/2018/NIA/DLI dated 19.01.2018 registered under Section 212/213/414/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13/17/40 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and Section 17 of Criminal Law Amendment Act arising out of Bero P.S. Case No. 67 of 2016 dated 10.11.2016, whereby the Learned Court below has rejected the bail application of appellant being Miscellaneous Criminal Application No. 1571 of 2023.

2. The prosecution case, in brief, 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 alongwith other police officials and reserve guards. 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 co-accused Binod Kumar, Chandra Shekhar Kumar, Nand Kishore Mahto and Mohan Kumar. 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 co-accused 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.

3. 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. On these grounds, the informant claimed 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. Accordingly, a First Information Report was instituted against six accused persons including four arrested persons namely Binod Kumar, Chandra Shekhar Kumar, Nand Kishore Mahto and Mohan Kumar.

4. The Central Government in exercise of the power under Sub-Section (5) of Section 6 read with Section 8 of the National Investigating Agency Act, 2008, vide MHA New Delhi CTCY Order No. 11011/51/2017/IS-IV dated 16.01.2018 SUO MOTU directed the NIA to take up the investigation of the case, and accordingly, Bero P.S. Case No. 67 of 2016 dated 10.11.2016 was re-registered as RC 02/2018/NIA/DLI dated 19.01.2018 under Section 13,17, 40 of the Unlawful Activities ( Prevention) Act, Sections 212, 213, 414, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 17 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act.

5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the judgment and order dated 20.06.2020 passed in Special (NIA) Case No. 02 of 2018 by the learned Court below was challenged before this Court in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 556 of 2020 and this Court had dismissed the appeal of the Appellant vide judgment dated 06.05.2022 with observation to renew his prayer for bail, if trial is not concluded within one year.

6. It is submit

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top