IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Rongon Mukhopadhyay, Arun Kumar Rai, JJ.
Pradeep Ram @ Pradeep Verma S/o Devki Ram - Appellant
Versus
Union of India through National Investigating Agency, represented by Superintendent of Police - Respondent
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 827 of 2024
Decided On : 06-03-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. order for bail and appeal outcome. (Para 1 , 2 , 13) |
| 2. criminal conspiracy and levies by banned organization. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. arguments regarding bail and implications of charges. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. judicial observations on custody and bail conditions. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
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 alleged that if any businessmen hesitates to pay levy, they are threatened by members of such organization and are also subjected to hardships. In order to verify the truthfulness or otherwise of such information a raiding party was constituted on the orders of Superintendent of Police, Chatra. A raid was conducted in the house of the President of the association Binod Kumar Ganjhu and from under his bed as well as from an almirah Rs. 91,75,890/- was recovered. No satisfactory explanation could be submitted by Binod Kumar Ganjhu with respect to the recovery of such a huge amount of cash. From the house of Binod Kumar Ganjhu two persons were also apprehended who disclosed their names as Birbal Ganjhu and Munesh Ganjhu and on search of their persons a loaded Mauser pistol was recovered from the possession of Birbal Ganjhu while from the possession of Munesh Ganjhu a country made pistol and two live cartridges were recovered. Both had confessed of being associated with TPC organization. Binod Ganjhu had disclosed that he is the President of “Magadh Sanchalan Samittee” and the levy collected is sent to Gopal Singh Bhogta @ Brijesh Ganjhu and thereafter it is distributed between Mukesh Ganjhu, Kohramji, Akramanji @ Ravindra Ganjhu, Anischyaji, Bhikan Ganjhu and Deepu Singh @ Bhikan. He had further disclosed that Bindu Ganjhu is a member of “Amrapali Sanchalan Samittee” who collects levy on behalf of TPC and since he is at present in Jail the collection of levy is being done by the appellant - Pradeep Ram. On such information a raid was conducted in the house of Pradeep Ram and from under his bed as well as from an almirah Rs. 57,57,710/- in cash was recovered. No satisfactory explanation could be given by Pradeep Ram with respect to the cash recovered.
4. Based on the aforesaid allegations Tandwa P.S. Case No. 02 of 2016 was instituted for the offences under Sections 414 , 384, 386, 387, 120B of the I.P.C., Section 25(1-b)(a), 26/35 of the ARMS ACT and Section 17 (1)(2) of Criminal Law Amendment Act against Binod Kumar Ganjhu, Munesh Ganjhu, Pradeep Ram, Birbal Ganjhu, Gopal Singh Bhokta @ Brijesh Ganjhu, Mukesh Ganjhu, Kohramji, Akramanji @ Ravindra Ganjhu, Anischya Ganjhu, Deepu Singh @ Bhikan, Bindu Ganjhu @ Bindeshwar Ganjhu and Bhikan Ganjhu.
On 10.03.2016 charge sheet was submitted against the other accused persons before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chatra. On 09.04.2017 on the prayer made by the Investigating Officer offences under Sections 16 , 17, 20
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.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.