Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, NAVNEET KUMAR
Pankaj Kumar Singh S/o Shri Shyam Nandan Singh – Appellant
Versus
Union of India through National Investigation Agency – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
Prayer
1. The instant appeal under Section 21 (4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 is directed against the order dated 08.04.2024 passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-XVI-cum-Spl. Judge, NIA, Ranchi in Misc. Criminal Application No. 672 of 2024 arising out of ATS Ranchi P.S. Case No. 01 of 2021 corresponding to Special (NIA) Case No. 4 of 2021, by which the prayer for regular bail of the appellant has been rejected.
Factual Matrix
2. The prosecution case, in brief, as per the allegation made in the FIR, read as under.
3. The prosecution case is based upon the typed report of sub inspector Vishal Pandey of ATS on 14.11.2021. In his typed report SI Vishal Pandey alleged that while investigation of the Tandwa P.S. Case No. 132/2021 he came to know that Avinash Kumar S/o Jairam Sharma and few other persons are supplying arms and ammunitions to miscreants and extremist groups. Accordingly, the ATS Ranchi P.S. Case No. 01/2021 has been registered.
4. The Central Government received an information regarding the registration of FIR No. 01/2021 dated 14.11.2021 P.S. ATS, Ranchi, Jharkhand, u/s. 120-B of IPC, Section 17 of CLA Act,
The court affirmed that continued detention is warranted due to the serious allegations of conspiracy to supply arms to terrorist organizations and the ongoing nature of the trial.
The court established that under the UAPA, particularly Section 43D(5), the standard for denying bail is based on whether the accusations are prima facie true, which requires a careful examination of....
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 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 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....
(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....
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.
The court upheld the rejection of bail, finding prima facie evidence of the appellant's involvement in arms smuggling under the UAPA, despite his claims of insufficient evidence.
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
