Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, AMBUJ NATH
Arun Gope, son of Mahabir Gope – Appellant
Versus
Union of India through NIA – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Mr. Balaji Srinivasan, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned Spl.P.P.
2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 12.01.2024 passed in Misc. Criminal Application No. 3195 of 2023 in connection with Special (NIA) Case No. 2/2018 corresponding to R.C. No. 02/2018/NIA/DLI arising out of Bero P.S. Case No. 67 of 2016 by Sri Madhuresh Kumar Verma, learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-XVI-cum-Special Judge, NIA, Ranchi, whereby and whereunder, 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. JH01Y-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 v
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.
Prolonged detention without trial violates constitutional rights; bail may be granted considering the length of custody and co-accused's bail.
Delay in trial does not justify bail in serious offenses when a prima facie case is established against the accused.
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.
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 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 ruled that prolonged custody and unresolved trial mandates bail consideration, even in the face of stringent laws under UAPA.
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....
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 upheld the bail granted to the accused, emphasizing the importance of a speedy trial and the absence of any bail condition violations, despite serious charges under the UAPA.
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
