The court confirmed that under Section 43D(5) of UAPA, bail cannot be granted if there are reasonable grounds to believe the accusations are prima facie true.

JUDGMENT :

I.A. No.10990 of 2024

1. The instant interlocutory application has been preferred under Section 21(5) of the N.I.A. Act for condoning the delay of 09 days in preferring the instant appeal.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

3. Considering the reason assigned in the interlocutory application and taking into consideration the purport of Section 21(5) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, the delay of 09 days in preferring the appeal is hereby condoned.

4. Accordingly, I.A. No.10990 of 2024 stands allowed.

Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1293 of 2024

1. The instant appeal filed under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, is directed against the order dated 26.07.2024 passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-XVI-cum-Spl. Judge, NIA, Ranchi in Misc.Criminal Application No. 1947 of 2024 (Special NIA Case No.04 of 2020 RC 39/2020/NIA/DLI), by which, the prayer for bail of the appellant has been rejected, in connection with Tiruldih P.S. Case No.16 of 2019 registered under Sections 147/148/149/379/302/353/323/324 and 435 of IPC, Section 27 of Arms Act, Section 17 of CLA Act and Sections 10 & 13 of UA(P) Act.

Factual Matrix

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case leading to this Criminal Appeal is that one FIR was registered on the basis of a self- statement of Sub Inspector-Dayanand Ram of Tiruldih P.S., in which, it was stated that on 14.06.2019, several police personnel were on a patrolling duty and had gone to the weekly market at Kuru, for which a station diary entry was made. It has been alleged that at about 5.45 P.M, the driver of the police vehicle namely Sukhlal Kudada had informed the Munshi Bobby Jha through Mobile that about one hour back, the miscreants have murdered the police personnel by assaulting them with ‘bhujali’ and had also looted arms and ammunitions. This information was entered in the station diary and it was also informed to the higher officials. After sometime, the police force had gone to the place of occurrence and found the dead body of several police personnel at the place of occurrence.

3. Based on the aforesaid allegations, Tiruldih P.S. Case No. 16 of 2019 was instituted for the offences punishable under sections 147, 148, 149, 379, 302, 353, 323, 324, 326 and 435 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 27 of the Arms Act, Section 17 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act and Section 10/13 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 .

4. The Central Government through Ministry of Home Affairs in exercise of the powers conferred under section 6 (5) of the NIA Act, 2008 had directed the NIA to take over investigation of Tiruldih P.S. Case No. 16 of 2019. Consequently, the case was re-registered as R.C.- 39/2020/NIA/DLI corresponding to Special NIA Case No. 4/2020.

5. After investigation, 2nd supplementary chargesheet has been submitted against the present appellant who was arrayed as an Accused no.1 (A-1) and the charge under section 120 B,121,121A, 147/148/149/379/302/353/323/324,396 and 435 of IPC, Section 27 of Arms Act, Section 17 of CLA Act and under Section 10,13,16,18,20,38 and 39 of UAP Act 1967.

6. Consequently, the above-named appellant had preferred the regular bail application vide Cr. Misc. Application No. 1947 of 2024 before the NIA Special Court, Ranchi for regular bail but the same has been rejected vide order dated 26.07.2024 against which the present appeal has been filed.

Submission of the learned counsel for the appellant

7. Learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the impugned order by taking the following grounds:-

(i) It has been submitted that it is a case where the prayer for regular bail of the appellant has been rejected solely on the basis of the testimony of one eye witness, save and except, as per the learned counsel for the appellant, no incriminating material has come against the appellant.

(ii) It has further been submitted there is no direct culpability shown to be there if the entire material which has been collected in course