Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, ARUN KUMAR RAI, JJ.
Chandra Shekhar Singh, S/o Late Vishnudhari Singh - Appellant
Vs.
The State of Jharkhand - Respondent
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 520 of 2020
Decided On : 19-02-2025
(A) Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 - Sections 13, 17, 40, and 43(d)(5) - Criminal Procedure Code - Bail application - The appellant's bail was rejected by the Special Judge, NIA, citing involvement in a conspiracy to channelize extorted funds for a terrorist organization. The appellant contended false implication and lack of prima facie evidence. The court noted the appellant's prolonged custody since 31.05.2019 and the bail granted to co-accused, leading to the decision to allow bail with conditions. (Paras 3, 4, 10, 11, and 12)
(B) Bail - Considerations for granting bail - The court emphasized the need for a balance between the gravity of the charges and the right to a speedy trial, referencing the constitutional guarantee of personal liberty. (Paras 9, 10, and 11)
Facts of the case:
The appellant was implicated in a case involving the PLFI, where significant amounts of extorted money were recovered. The investigation revealed a network of communication among the accused.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the appellant had been in custody for nearly six years and that some co-accused had been granted bail, warranting a reconsideration of the bail application.
Issues: The main issues included the appellant's involvement in the conspiracy and the justification for denying bail.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that prolonged detention without trial is inconsistent with constitutional rights, and the appellant's continued custody was unjustified given the circumstances.
Result: The appeal is allowed, and the appellant is granted bail subject to conditions.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Mr. Vikas Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned Spl. P.P.-NIA.
2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 20-06-2020 passed by the learned Judicial Commissioner-cum-Special Judge, N.I.A. At Ranchi in Misc. Cr. Application No. 739/2019 corresponding to Special (N.I.A.) Case No. 02/2018 (RC- 02/2018/NIA/DLI) arising out of Bero P.S. Case No. 67/2016, whereby and whereudner, the prayer for bail of the appellant has been rejected.
3. The prosecution case arises out of a written report of Bindeshwari Das, Officer-in-Charge of Bero P.S. to the effect that a secret information was received on 10.11.2016 that the supremo of PLFI for the purpose of depositing his ill-gotten money of proceeds of crime realized as extortion had sent it through his associates for depositing in the Bank account for converting into white through a Safari vehicle bearing registration no. JH-01Y-2898 to SBI, Bero Branch. After making a station diary entry and on the basis of the directives of the superior authorities the informant along with other Police personnel went to SBI, Bero Branch for verification of the said information. It is alleged that at about 3:15P.M. the informant and his associates waited in ambush and in the meantime having seen the Police party 3-4 persons attempted to flee away and while one of the persons was apprehended from the campus of the Bank three other persons were apprehended while boarding on the Safari vehicle bearing registration no. JH01Y2898. On query the apprehended accused persons disclosed their name as Binod Kumar, Chandra Shekhar Kumar, Nand Kishore Mahto and Mohan Kumar. A search was conducted in presence of independent witnesses and one bag having 16 bundles of currency note of Rs. 1,000/- total amounting to Rs. 16,00,000/- was recovered from the possession of Binod Kumar and a mobile phone was also recovered from him. It has been alleged that an amount of Rs. 38,000/- was recovered from the possession of co-accused Chandra Shekhar Kumar along with deposit slips of various dates and one deposit slip of Rs. 16,00,000/- along with two mobile phones. It has also been alleged that total currency of Rs. 9,00,000/- was recovered from the possession of co-accused Nand Kishore Mahto and two mobile phones were recovered from Mohan Kumar @ Rajesh Kumar. None of the apprehended accused persons could show any documents with respect to the recovered currency notes and co- accused Binod Kumar had confessed that PLFI Supremo Dinesh Gope had instructed him over mobile to deposit the extorted amount of Rs. 25,38,000/- in the name of the Petrol Pump of co- accused Chandra Shekhar Kumar. All the articles were seized in presence of independent witnesses and a seizure list was also prepared.
Based on the aforesaid allegations Bero P.S. Case No. 67/2016 was instituted for the offences punishable u/s 212, 213, 414, 34 of the I.P.C., Section 13, 17, 40 of the UA(P) Act, 1967 and Section 17(ii) of the CLA Act. On completion of investigation charge- sheet was submitted against Vinod Kumar @ Binod Kumar, Chandra Shekhar Kumar, Nand Kishore Mahto and Mohan Kumar @ Rajesh Kumar for the offences punishable u/s 212, 213, 414 and 34 of the I.P.C., Section 13, 17 and 40 of the UA(P) Act, 1967 and Section 17(ii) of the CLA Act.
Consequent to the order of the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs vide Order No. 11011/51/2017-IS, IV dated 16.01.2018, the National Investigation Agency had taken over the investigation of the case and consequently, the First Information Report was re-registered as RC-02/2018/NIA/DLI. In course of investigation a supplementary charge-sheet was submitted by the NIA against several accused persons including the appellant.
4. It has been submitted by Mr. Vikas Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant has falsely been implicated and, in fact, none of the witnesses have been able to state as to in which manner the appellant was involved in comm
Prolonged detention without trial violates constitutional rights; bail may be granted considering the length of custody and co-accused's bail.
The right to bail cannot be denied solely based on serious allegations; prolonged detention without trial must be addressed as it infringes constitutional rights to a timely trial.
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.
Delay in trial does not justify bail in serious offenses when a prima facie case is established against the accused.
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.
The prolonged pretrial detention without trial is a key reason for granting bail, emphasizing the right to a timely trial.
The court's decision emphasized the serious nature of the offenses, the organized network involved, and the prima facie evidence supporting the role of each accused.
The court emphasized the importance of prima facie evidence, the right to a speedy trial, and the lack of incriminating material in the possession of the accused.
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
