Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, AMBUJ NATH
Munesh Ganjhu, S/o Nirmal Ganjhu – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.
Heard Mr. Balaji Shrinivasan, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned Special P.P. for the respondent-NIA, Ranchi.
2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 24.02.2024 passed in Misc. Criminal Application No. 3184/2023, in connection with Special (NIA) Case No. 03/2018, corresponding to R.C. Case No. 06/2018/NIA/DLI, arising out of Tandwa P.S. Case No. 02/2016 by Sri Madhuresh Kumar Verma, learned AJC-XVI-cum-Special Judge, NIA, Ranchi, whereby and whereunder, the prayer for bail of the appellant has been rejected.
3. A written report was submitted by Ramdhari Singh, Sub Inspector of Police, posted at Simaria P.S. to the effect that on 10.01.2016 a secret information was received by the Superintendent of Police that in Amrapali Magadh Coal area in Tandwa some local people have formed an association which is related to the banned extremist outfit TPC. The members of such association were extracting levy from coal traders and DO holders by creating fear in the name of the extremists of TPC, namely Gopal Singh Bhokta @ Brijesh Ganjhu, Mukesh Ganjhu, Kohram Ji, Akraman Ji @ Ravindra Ganjhu, Anischay Ganjhu, Bhikan Ganjhu
Long periods of incarceration may warrant bail consideration, emphasizing constitutional rights over statutory restrictions where trials are unduly delayed.
Prolonged pre-trial detention without progress warrants reconsideration of bail, balancing statutory restrictions with constitutional rights to speediness in trial.
The court established that prolonged pre-trial detention could warrant bail, despite statutory restrictions.
The court ruled that prolonged custody and unresolved trial mandates bail consideration, even in the face of stringent laws under UAPA.
The judgment underscores the principle that prolonged pre-trial detention without substantial evidence of involvement in terrorist activities can infringe upon constitutional rights, warranting the g....
The court ruled that generalized allegations without specific evidence do not constitute a prima facie case for denying bail under the UAP Act.
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....
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
