Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(JHK) 4577
HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH
JAHIRUDDIN ANSARI – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF JHARKHAND THROUGH NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY – Respondent
Cr.A(DB)/51/2022
Mere harboring of terrorists without knowledge of their terrorist activities does not constitute an offense under Section 43-D(5) of the UAP Act.
Headnote:
UAP ACT - BAIL - HARBORING TERRORISTS - KNOWLEDGE OF TERRORIST ACTIVITIES - SECTION 43-D(5) OF THE UAP ACT
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was arrested for allegedly harboring terrorists and facilitating their escape. The prosecution alleged that the appellant was aware of the terrorist activities of the accused and had provided them with shelter and safe custody of arms and ammunition. The appellant denied the allegations and claimed that he was not aware of the terrorist activities of the accused.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant did not actively participate in the terrorist incident and was only facilitating the escape of the accused. The court also found that there was no evidence to show that the appellant was aware of the terrorist activities of the accused.
Issues: Whether the appellant was aware of the terrorist activities of the accused?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the prosecution had failed to establish a prima facie case against the appellant under Section 43-D(5) of the UAP Act. The court noted that the appellant was not aware of the terrorist activities of the accused and was only facilitating their escape.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal and directed that the appellant be released on bail.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 51 of 2022
---------
Jahiruddin Ansari, S/o Mubarak Ansari, R/o Village
Kanbhita, P.O. + P.S. Mandar, District- Ranchi,
Jharkhand.
... … Appellant
Versus
Union of India through National Investigation Agency
... … Respondent
---------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH
---------
For the Appellant
: Mr. Vikram Sinha, Advocate
For the Respondent-NIA : Mr. A.K. Das, Spl. P.P.
---------
09/03.01.2023
Heard Mr. Vikram Sinha, learned counsel for the
appellant and Mr. A.K. Das, learned Special P.P. for the
NIA, Ranchi.
2.
This appeal is directed against the order dated
14.12.2021 passed by Sri Madhuresh Kumar Verma,
learned AJC-XVI-cum-Special Judge, NIA, Ranchi in
Criminal Misc. Application No. 456/2021, arising out of
Special (NIA) Case No. 01/2021 (R.C. Case No.
02/2021/NIA/RNC) initially registered as Balumath P.S.
Case No. 234/2020, whereby and whereunder the prayer
for bail of the appellant has been rejected.
3.
The First Information Report is based on the self
statement of Rana Bhanu Pratap Singh, Sub-Inspector of
Police dated 19.12.2020, wherein it has been alleged that
on 18.12.2020 at about 7:00 P.M. information was received
at Balumath P.S. that some unknown persons were
burning vehicles while firing indiscriminately near Check-
post No. 1 of Tetariyakhad Colliery. The assailants had
fired at the Police party which had rushed to the spot. It
has been alleged that from the place of occurrence burnt
vehicles, fragments of can bomb with wire, a white coloured
empty gallon of plastic, spent cartridges, three hand written
pamphlets issuing threats to the transporters and coal
companies involved in mining etc. were found at the spot. It
-2-
has also been alleged that gangsters Sujit Sinha and Aman
Sao had conspired with Pradeep Ganjhu and his associates
namely, Santosh Ganjhu, Bihari Ganjhu, Sakendra
Ganjhu, Pramod Ganjhu and others for extortion and
disruption of government work.
Based on the aforesaid allegations Balumath P.S.
Case No. 234/2020 was registered for the offences
punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 353, 504, 506,
307, 427, 435, 386, 387, 120B of the I.P.C., Section 27 of
the Arms Act and Sections 3/4 of the Explosive Substances
Act. The Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs,
CTCR Division, New Delhi vide order
F. No.
11011/15/2021/NIA dated 03.03.2021, in terms of sub-
Section (5) of Section 6 read with Section 8 of the National
Investigation Agency Act, 2008 had handed over the
investigation of Balumath P.S. Case No. 234/2020 to the
National Investigation Agency consequent to which the
First Information Report was re-registered as NIA Case No.
RC-01/2021/NIA/RNC under Sections 147, 148, 149, 353,
504, 506, 307, 427, 435, 386, 387, 120B, 121A, 216 of the
I.P.C., Sections 25(1)(b), 26, 27 and 35 of the Arms Act,
Sections 3/4 of the Explosive Substances Act, Section 17 of
the Criminal Law Amendment Act and Sections 10, 13,
16(1)(b), 20 and 23 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention)
Act (hereinafter referred to as UAP Act for the sake of
brevity). On completion of investigation charge-sheet was
submitted by the NIA against the appellant and others.
4.
It has been submitted by Mr. Vikram Sinha,
learned counsel for the appellant that admittedly the
appellant was not involved in the incident which had
occurred at Tetariyakhad Colliery. It has been submitted
that the appellant has been implicated as he had facilitated
the picking up of Shahrukh Ansari and Pradip Ganjhu from
Bijupara Chowk, their stay at night and they being dropped
near Gumla Petrol Pump, Booty More, Ranchi for their
-3-
onward journey. It has been submitted that in course of
investigation nothing has come to indicate that the
appellant
