The court established that a prima facie case under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act requires a lighter evidentiary burden, allowing for bail denial where reasonable grounds for believing accusations to be true exist.

ORDER :

1. The instant appeal filed under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, is directed against the order dated 16.11.2024 passed in M.C.A. No. 2823 of 2024 by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner, XVI- cum-Special Judge, NIA, Ranchi in connection with Special NIA Case No. 04 of 2020(S), RC 39/2020/NIA/Delhi arising out of Tiruldih P.S. Case No. 16 of 2019, registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 379, 302, 353 and 435 of the Indian Penal Code; under Section 27 of the Arms Act and under Section 17 of the CLA as well as under Section 13 of U.A.(P) Act; subsequently second supplementary charge-sheet was submitted under Sections 120(B), 121, 121(A), 396 IPC and under Sections 16, 18, 20, 38 and 39 of the U.A. (P) Act, whereby and whereunder the prayer for regular bail of the appellant has been rejected.

2. It has been contended on behalf of appellant that the appellant is not named in the FIR and no specific attributablity has been assigned against the appellant and name of the appellant has come in the confessional statement of co-accused. It has further been submitted that neither any incriminating materials has been recovered from the possession of the appellant nor any arms or ammunitions has been recovered from the possession of the appellant. Further, he has no concern with any CPI Maoist Organization. He is languishing in judicial custody since19.03.2024.

3. Therefore, submission has been made by learned counsel for the appellant that the impugned order may be quashed and set aside.

4. While on the other hand, learned counsel for the Opp. Parties has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that during investigation it was established that the appellant was associated with co-accused Maharaj Pramanik. He used to provide logistics support to said co- accused Maharaj Pramanik and was a member of the proscribed organization, namely, CIP (Maoist).

5. Further submission has been made that role of the present appellant has been described in the 2nd Supplementary Charge-sheet at paragraph 17.36.8.

6. Furthermore, prayer for bail of the other similarly co- accused persons has been rejected by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1539 of 2022 vide order dated 18.08.2023; Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1547 of 2022 dated 18.08.2023;Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1272 of 2022 vide order dated 17.01.2023; Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 234 of 2022 vide order dated 21.09.2022 and Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1226 of 2022 vide order dated 17.01.2023.

7. Therefore, submission has been made that the impugned order requires no interference by this Court.

8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone across the finding recorded by the learned court in the impugned order as also order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench rejecting the prayer for bail of the co-accused persons.

9. This Court, before proceeding to examine as to whether the appellant has been able to make out a prima facie case for enlarging him on bail, deems it fit and proper to discuss some settled proposition of law and the relevant provisions of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967(hereinafter referred to as Act, 1967) which is required to be considered herein.

10. The main objective of the Act, 1967 is to make powers available for dealing with activities directed against the integrity and sove