SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Jhk) 508

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, JJ.
Niraj Kumar Alias Niraj Srivastava - Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand - Respondent
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 807 of 2024
Decided On : 19-03-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : P.P.N. Roy, Naveen Kumar Jaiswal, Pragati Prasad
For the Respondent: Vandana Bharti

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.

Headnote:(A) National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 - Section 21(4) - Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 - Sections 16, 17, 18, 20, 21 - Criminal appeal for regular bail - The lower court's rejection of bail was challenged by the appellant involved in extortion activities linked to organized crime, under serious allegations governed by the UAPA. The court took into consideration the prima facie evidence of the appellant's involvement in managing extorted funds and the seriousness of charges under the UAPA. (Paras 13, 14, 32, 43, 88)

(B) Bail Application - The court examined whether the appellant could establish a prima facie case for bail, emphasizing the high burden of proof required under the UAPA for release on bail when serious charges are involved. (Paras 25, 38)

Facts of the case:
The appellant was accused of involvement with a gang led by a named individual, operating through extortion and illicit funding, with multiple recoveries made linking him to criminal activities. (Paras 2, 4, 10, 44)

Findings of Court:
The court found prima facie evidence against the appellant substantial enough to uphold the lower court's decision denying bail based on the seriousness of the allegations and ongoing criminal activities linked to terrorism or threats to national security. (Paras 28, 88)

Issues: The main issues examined included whether the appellant's role in the gang justified bail and if the allegations were supported by sufficient evidence to warrant continued detention. (Paras 34, 43, 46)

Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated the need for compelling evidence in cases involving UAPA, stating it must be satisfied there are reasonable grounds for believing the allegations are true. (Paras 30, 43)

Result: Appeal dismissed; bail application denied. (Paras 90, 92)

Table of Content
1. outline of the prosecution's case. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
2. summary of parties' arguments. (Para 11 , 12)
3. analysis of allegations under uapa. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26)
4. criteria for granting bail under special statutes. (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38)
5. evidence established against the appellant. (Para 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52)
6. discussion on trial delays and custody arguments. (Para 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59)
7. key distinctions between cases cited. (Para 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66)
8. considerations of the principle of parity. (Para 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 78 , 79)
9. role of charge-sheets in determining bail. (Para 80 , 81 , 82 , 83 , 84 , 85 , 86)
10. conclusion on the suitability of the bail application. (Para 87 , 88)
11. final judgment on the appeal. (Para 89)
12. orders passed by the court. (Para 90 , 91 , 92)

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 planning to commit some cognizable offence. They use social media app for communication.

3. Since there is terror of the said gang in the area, the police party without wasting time, prepared for conducting raid and for that teams were constituted for raiding. The different teams raided at different places connected with Aman Srivastava and his associates and one Sanjay Karmakar was apprehended from the house of Prince Raj and from his possession one loaded revolver and 6 cartridges were recovered. He had produced license obtained from Jammu and Kashmir State, to this respect one FIR has been lodged under Arms Act.

4. The police party under the command of senior officials raided the house of one Siddarth Sahu and from the almirah of his house Rs.28,88,000/- has been recovered. On interrogation, he had disclosed that this money is belonging to Aman Srivastava gang obtained through extortion and on being directed by them one Pintu had given this money to him. Which he had to give to one Sunil.

5. He further disclosed that he is relative of Aman Srivastava and after the death of his father he is running the gang with the help of his other family members. They used to collect money from different areas. The recovered money was seized in accordance with law.

6. On 16.01.2022 search was conducted of the house of one Binod Kumar Pandey from where Rs. 5,42,000/- was recovered. He had disclosed that the money was belonging to Aman Srivastava and he was going to send the same through hawala in the accounts of Aman and Avik. Hence, the FIR being ATS (Ranchi) Case No. 01 of 2022 dated 17.01.2022 has been lodged against 12 named accused persons for the alleged for offence Under Sections 386 / 387/109/34/120 B/ 201 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , for offenc

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top