Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
Niraj Kumar Alias Niraj Srivastava – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
1. The instant appeal has been filed under Section 21 (4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 against the order dated 24.05.2024 passed by the learned A.J.C.-XVIII-cum-Spl. Judge, ATS, Ranchi in Misc. Criminal Application No. 1543 of 2024 whereby and whereunder the prayer for regular bail of the appellant in connection with ATS Case No. 01 of 2022, registered for the offence under Sections 386 , 387, 420, 468, 471, 109, 34, 120B and 201 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and Sections 16 , 17, 18, 20 and 21 of the UA(P) Act, 1967, has been rejected.
Prosecution case and Facts:
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case leading to this Criminal Appeal is that the Superintendent of Police, A.T.S. received a secret information on 15.01.2022 that one Aman Srivastava by changing places in association with his family members and associates is realizing extortion from businessmen and receiving the money through hawala and at that time huge amount is kept with one Sidharth Sahu who is about to send the amount to Aman Srivastava and Avik Srivastava through hawala. It was also informed that they were also preparing to extort money from some more persons and pl
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.
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.
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 ruled that prima facie evidence justifies the rejection of bail for accused involved in serious offenses under UAPA, emphasizing the need to balance individual rights with public safety.
The principle of parity in bail applications allows for equality among co-accused, emphasizing the right to a speedy trial and the unjust nature of prolonged incarceration without conviction.
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....
Bail is denied in cases involving serious charges under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act due to the appellant's criminal antecedents and status as an absconder, despite claims of parity with ....
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.
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
