IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Rongon Mukhopadhyay, Arun Kumar Rai, JJ
Chandra Shekhar Singh, S/o Late Vishnudhari Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
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 ab
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 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.
The court reaffirmed that anticipatory bail is not maintainable under Section 43D(4) of the UAPA in cases involving serious charges of terrorism, emphasizing the need for custodial interrogation in s....
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 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....
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.