Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR, JJ
Sunil Tudu Son Of Sukhlal Manjhi – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India – Respondent
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 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.
The court upheld the denial of bail under UAPA, emphasizing the serious nature of the allegations and the prima facie case against the appellant, which posed a threat to national security.
The court established that under the UA(P) Act, particularly Section 43D(5), bail can be denied if there are reasonable grounds to believe the accusations against the accused are prima facie true, em....
The court established that involvement with a banned terrorist organization and the collection of levies for such groups constitutes serious offenses under the UA(P) Act, warranting denial of bail wh....
Bail – Being a member of banned organization is also an offence under UA(P) Act and bail can be declined.
The court affirmed that bail under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act requires prima facie evidence of guilt, emphasizing the severity of charges against the appellant and ongoing trial facts.
(1) Regular bail – Issue of national integrity is also to be taken care of so as to maintain balance.(2) Precedent – Ratio of judgment is to be applied on the basis of factual aspect involved in each....
The completion of investigation and prolonged judicial custody are significant factors in determining the entitlement to bail under UAPA. The court emphasized the mandatory requirements under Section....
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 acc....
The court upheld the denial of bail under the UAP Act, emphasizing the serious nature of the charges and the prima facie evidence against the appellant.
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
