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) 676

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, AMBUJ NATH, JJ.
Arun Gope, son of Mahabir Gope - Appellant 
Versus
Union of India through NIA - Respondent 
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 68 of 2024
Decided on : 05-03-2025


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Balaji Srinivasan, Advocate, Mr. Niranjan Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Spl.P.P., Mr. Saurav Kumar, Advocate

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.

Headnote:(A) UAPA Act, 1967 - Sections 13, 17, 40 - IPC - Sections 212, 213, 414, 34 - Bail application denied - Accused involved in money laundering for extortion - No direct evidence establishing culpability of the appellant - Court referenced previous judgments on speedy trials and bail eligibility despite serious charges - Recognized the prolonged custody of the appellant since May 31, 2019, and granted bail considering the cases of co-accused granted bail and the time elapsed. (Paras 11, 12, 14)

(B) Criminal Procedure - Denial of bail - Factors for consideration include nature of crime and period of incarceration - Courts must assure timely trials to uphold constitutional rights. (Paras 11, 12)

Facts of the case:
The appellant, involved in a criminal conspiracy linked to PLFI, has been in custody since 31.05.2019. The charges include channeling extorted funds with no substantial evidence proving direct involvement beyond familial connections with organized crime leaders.

Findings of Court:
Considering the lack of concrete evidence against the appellant, prolonged detention, and bail granted to co-accused, the court ruled for granting bail under specified conditions.

Issues: The court addressed the fundamental rights regarding speedy trials, the nature of allegations against the appellant, and the relative treatment of similarly situated co-accused persons concerning bail.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the constitutional guarantee for a speedy trial and that mere serious allegations do not preclude the right to bail. An extended period of custodial detention mandates consideration for bail if the trial is likely to be unduly delayed. (Paras 11, 12)

Result: Appeal allowed; bail granted.

Table of Content
1. factual background regarding the case. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. arguments of the appellant and prosecution. (Para 6 , 7)
3. court's reasoning on bail and constitutional rights. (Para 10)
4. legal principles regarding bail under uapa. (Para 11 , 12)
5. final order granting bail to the appellant. (Para 14)

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 verification of the said information. It is alleged that at about 3:15 P.M. the informant and his associates waited in ambush and in the meantime having seen the Police party 3-4 persons attempted to flee away and while one of the persons was apprehended from the campus of the Bank three other persons were apprehended while boarding on the Safari vehicle bearing registration no. JH01Y2898. On query the apprehended accused persons disclosed their name as Binod Kumar, Chandra Shekhar Kumar, Nand Kishore Mahto and Mohan Kumar. A search was conducted in presence of independent witnesses and one bag having 16 bundles of currency note of Rs. 1,000/- total amounting to Rs. 16,00,000/- was recovered from the possession of Binod Kumar and a mobile phone was also recovered from him. It has been alleged that an amount of Rs. 38,000/- was recovered from the possession of co-accused Chandra Shekhar Kumar along with deposit slips of various dates and one deposit slip of Rs. 16,00,000/- along with two mobile phones. It has also been alleged that total currency of Rs. 9,00,000/- was recovered from the possession of co-accused Nand Kishore Mahto and two mobile phones were recovered from Mohan Kumar @ Rajesh Kumar. None of the apprehended accused persons could show any documents with respect to the recovered currency notes and co-accused Binod Kumar had confessed that PLFI Supremo Dinesh Gope had instructed him over mobile to deposit the extorted amount of Rs. 25,38,000/- in the name of the Petrol Pump of co-accused Chandra Shekhar Kumar. All the articles were seized in presence of independent witnesses and a seizure list was also prepared.

4. Based on the aforesaid allegations Bero P.S. Case No. 67/2016 was instituted for the offences punishable u/s 212, 213, 414, 34 of the I.P.C., Section 13, 17, 40 of the UA(P) Act, 1967 and Section 17(ii) of the CLA Act. On completion of investigation charge-sheet was submitted against Vinod Kumar @ Binod Kumar, Chandra Shekhar Kumar, Nand Kishore Mahto and Mohan Kumar @ Rajesh Kumar for the offences punishable u/s 212, 213, 414 and 34 of the I.P.C., Section 13, 17 and 40 of the UA(P) Act, 1967 and Section17(ii) of the CLA Act.

5. Consequent to the order of the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs vide Order No. 11011/51/2017-IS, IV dated 16.01.2018, the National Investigation Agency had taken over the investigation of the case and consequently the First Information Report was re-registered as RC-02/2018/NIA/DLI

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