Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, NAVNEET KUMAR
Jaiki Paradhi @ Jaiki @ J.K. S/o Patamudi Paradhi – Appellant
Versus
Union of India through National Investigation Agency – Respondent
ORDER :
I.A. No. 10834 of 2024
1. At the outset, learned counsel for the appellant has sought for leave of this Court to make necessary correction, in the provision of law under which the instant application has been filed, in the cause title of instant Interlocutory Application by deleting ‘5 of the LIMITATION ACT ’ and in place thereof inserting ‘21(5) of the N.I.A. Act, 2008’.
2. Considering the nature of prayer, let necessary correction be done by him in course of day in the instant Interlocutory Application.
3. The instant Interlocutory Application has been filed for condonation of delay of 07 days in filing the instant appeal.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
5. In view of the reasons assigned in the application, the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned.
6. Accordingly, Interlocutory Application being I.A. No. 10834 of 2024 stands disposed of.
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1277 of 2024 Prayer
7. The instant appeal, preferred under Section 21 (4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, is directed against the order dated 29.07.2024 passed by learned AJC-XVI- cum-Spl. Judge, NIA, Ranchi in Criminal Misc. Application No.2127 of 2024, [Special (NIA) Case No.02/2021] corr
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 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 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 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....
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 upheld the denial of bail under the UAP Act, emphasizing the serious nature of the charges and the prima facie evidence against the appellant.
Bail under UAPA is an exception; serious charges and prima facie evidence against the accused justify denial of bail.
Bail – Being a member of banned organization is also an offence under UA(P) Act and bail can be declined.
The main legal point established is that the grant of bail under UAPA requires a prima facie view of the accused's involvement, balancing of various factors, and imposition of stringent conditions to....
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
