Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Sujit Narayan Prasad, Pradeep Kumar Srivastava
Dashrath Singh Bhokta @ Dashrath Ganjhu – Appellant
Versus
Union of India through National Investigating Agency, Represented by Superintendent of Police – Respondent
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 a
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....
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 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 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.
Bail – Being a member of banned organization is also an offence under UA(P) Act and bail can be declined.
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
