Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Rongon Mukhopadhyay, Arun Kumar Rai
Pradeep Ram @ Pradeep Verma S/o Devki Ram – Appellant
Versus
Union of India through National Investigating Agency, represented by Superintendent of Police – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
R. Mukhopadhyay, J.
Heard Mr. Balaji Srinivasan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. A. K. Das, learned A.P.P. appearing for the NIA.
2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 01.05.2024 passed in Misc. Criminal Application No. 616 of 2024 in connection with R.C. Case No. 06/2018/NIA/DLI arising out of Special (NIA) case no. 3 of 2018 by Sri Madhuresh Kumar Verma, learned A.J.C. 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, Deepu Singh @ Bhikan and Bindu Ghanju. It was also allege
The court ruled that prolonged custody and unresolved trial mandates bail consideration, even in the face of stringent laws under UAPA.
Prolonged pre-trial detention without progress warrants reconsideration of bail, balancing statutory restrictions with constitutional rights to speediness in trial.
Long periods of incarceration may warrant bail consideration, emphasizing constitutional rights over statutory restrictions where trials are unduly delayed.
The court established that prolonged pre-trial detention could warrant bail, despite statutory restrictions.
The court ruled that generalized allegations without specific evidence do not constitute a prima facie case for denying bail under the UAP Act.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the payment of extortion money does not necessarily amount to terror funding, and the court must assess the prima facie truth of the accusatio....
(1) While considering grant of bail under Section 43-D (5) of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, it is bounden duty of Court to apply its mind to examine entire material on record for the pu....
Delay in trial does not justify bail in serious offenses when a prima facie case is established against the accused.
Bail – Being a member of banned organization is also an offence under UA(P) Act and bail can be declined.
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
