Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Sujit Narayan Prasad, Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, JJ.
Dashrath Singh Bhokta @ Dashrath Ganjhu - Appellant
Versus
Union of India through National Investigating Agency, Represented by Superintendent of Police - Respondent
Criminal Appeal (DB) No.57 of 2025
Decided On : 29-04-2025
(A) National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 - Section 21(4) - Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 - Sections 17, 18, 20, 21 - Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1908 - Section 17 - Appeal against rejection of bail - Appellant charged with extortion and terrorism-related offences - The court emphasized the gravity of the charges and the prima facie evidence against the appellant, including his involvement with a terrorist organization and the collection of levy from contractors. (Paras 1, 10, 17, 24, 43, 60, 124)
(B) Bail - Considerations - The court noted that the nature of the allegations and the appellant's long absconding period justified the denial of bail, emphasizing that the principle of bail being the rule does not apply under the UAP Act. (Paras 43, 60, 122)
Facts of the case:
The appellant was arrested after being implicated in a case involving extortion by a terrorist organization, with significant evidence including cash and weapons seized from co-accused. The appellant had been absconding for four years before his arrest.
Findings of Court:
The court found sufficient prima facie evidence of the appellant's involvement in serious offences under the UAP Act and other related laws, justifying the denial of bail.
Issues: The main issues included the gravity of the charges, the appellant's long absconding period, and the sufficiency of evidence against him.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the serious nature of the allegations and the prima facie evidence warranted the rejection of bail, emphasizing that the UAP Act imposes stricter standards for bail.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
1. The instant criminal appeal has been preferred on behalf of the appellant under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 for setting aside the order dated 01.07.2024 passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-XVI- cum-Special Judge, NIA Ranchi in Misc. Criminal Application No. 1473 of 2024 in connection with Special (NIA) 08 of 2018 corresponding to R.C. No. 23/2018/NIA/DLI arising out of Panki P. S. Case No. 157 of 2017 and G. R. No. 2615 of 2017 for the offence under Sections 386/120-B of the Indian Penal Code, under Sections 17,18,20 and 21 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act,1967 and under Section 17 of CLA Act 1908, has been rejected.
Factual Matrix
2. The prosecution case, as per the First Information Report, in brief is that the instant case is pertaining to the incident of extortion/levy collection by TPC cadres in Left Wing Extremist (LWE) affected state of Jharkhand. The instant case was registered by Panki Police Station, Dist- Palamu on 23.11.2017.
3. The brief fact is that on credible information received to SI Kamaldev Singh of Panki Police Station that TPC Operative Paramjeet Singh @ Sonu Das and his associates are collecting and demanding /extorting levy money from contractors in the area of Panki. Accordingly, the information was confirmed and was informed to SP, Palamu. On the directions of SP, Palamu in co-ordination with SP (Ops) of Jharkhand Jaguar team consisting of Jharkhand Jaguar, Panki Police personnel and Reserve team of Police Station conducted an operation.
4. Subsequently on 23.11.2017 at about 03.00 Hrs in Panki market, the police team got information that one TPC operative is coming from Piprataand side and going towards Balumath. At about 04.15 Hrs, TPC operative Shyam Bhokta @ DC was caught near the Amaanath Barrage on Amaanat River and Rs.5 lakh in cash, 01 country made Pistol and 02 live rounds and 01 empty fired case and other items were seized from his possession.
5. Accordingly, FIR No. 157/17 dated 23.11.2017 was registered at PS Panki, Distt. Palamu, relating to the above seizure from the TPC operative Shyam Bhokta @ DC and other accused persons involved in the conspiracy namely Paramjeet Singh @ Sonu Das, Akramanji, Vikas @ Varunji, Laxman Ganju @ Kohramji, Mukeshji, Nageswar Ganjhu @Tarunji, Premsagar Mahto, Uchit Mahto, Amit Kumar Singh and other TPC members.
6. After the arrest, Shyam Bhokta @ DC has disclosed that heavy cache of arms/ammunition is hidden in Lambitaand Hills. Acting on the disclosure of Shyam Bhokta @ DC, the police party had gone to Lambitaand hills, and caught two accused persons Prem Sagar Mahto with one country made loaded pistol and Uchit Mahto with 9 mm pistol and magazine. However, one accused Amit Kumar Singh managed to escape. Uchit Mahto and Prem Sagar Mahto were arrested on 23.11.2017.
7. Subsequently accused Amit Kumar Singh was also arrested on next day i.e. on 24.11.2017. On recovery of arms/ammunition along with other incriminating materials from two TPC operatives, another FIR No.158/2017 dated 23.11.2017 was lodged under same PS Panki on the same day. Later on, the three accused persons Uchit Mahto, Prem Sagar Mahto and Amit Kumar Singh were remanded in case no. 157/2017 on 04.12.2017.
8. It further appear that Panki police, Palamu, registered Panki PS case no 157/2017 dated 23.11.2017 under sections 386 & 120B of Indian Penal Code, section 25(1B)(a), 26 & 35 of Arms Act, section 17 & 18 of CLA Act and section 10,11,17,18,19 & 20 of the UA(P) Act, against Shyam Bhokta @ DC, Amit Kumar Singh, Prem Sagar Mahto, Uchit Mahto, Mukeshji @ Mukesh Ganjhu, Kohramji @ Akramanji, Vikas @ Varunji, Nageshwar Ganjhu @ Tarunji (petitioner), Paramjeet Singh @ Sonu Das and others on the basis of complaint made by Sh. Kamaldev Singh, Sub Inspector, PS- Panki.
9. After investigation of the case, investigating officer of the PS Panki case being FIR No. 157/2017, had filed Charge Sheet - 16/2018 on 17.0
The court upheld the denial of bail under the UAP Act, emphasizing the serious nature of the charges and the prima facie evidence against the appellant.
In cases under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, bail may be denied if there is prima facie evidence of serious criminal involvement linked to national security threats.
Bail under the U.A.P. Act requires prima facie assessment of allegations; long custody or parity with co-accused do not automatically justify release.
Under UA(P) Act Section 43D(5), bail denied if charge-sheet shows prima facie true accusations of terrorist gang involvement; custody/delay insufficient absent changed circumstances; parity only for ....
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 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....
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
