Sushila Devi's Scooty Not Proceeds Of Terrorism: Jharkhand High Court Sets Aside UAPA Attachment

A marital relationship with an accused cannot, by itself, turn a wife's independently purchased vehicle into proceeds of terrorism, the Jharkhand High Court has held while releasing a TVS scooty attached in a National Investigation Agency (NIA) case.

A Division Bench of Justice Rongon Mukhopadhyay and Justice Arun Kumar Rai ruled on an appeal filed by Sushila Devi and the substituted legal heirs of her brother-in-law, Vishwakarma Ganjhu. The Bench set aside the attachment order only in respect of the scooty registered in Sushila Devi's name and directed its release after verifying her identity. It confirmed the attachment of a JCB loader and a two-storeyed family house, holding that no legitimate source was shown for those assets.

A raid, a levy network, and a family's assets

The case arose from a written report lodged in Tandwa, Chatra, in January 2016. Police received information that an association linked to the banned extremist outfit Tritiya Prastuti Committee (TPC) was collecting levy from coal traders and delivery order holders in the Amrapali-Magadh coal area. A raid at the house of Binod Kumar Ganjhu — described as the president of the “Magadh Sanchalan Samittee” — led to the recovery of Rs 91,75,890 in cash. Another raid at the house of Pradeep Ram yielded Rs 57,57,710.

Initially registered under the Indian Penal Code, the Arms Act and the Criminal Law Amendment Act, the case later attracted Sections 16, 17, 20 and 23 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. In February 2018, the Central Government directed the NIA to take over the investigation, and the case was re-registered as RC-06/2018/NIA/DLI.

In the course of investigation, the NIA identified movable and immovable properties standing in the names of Binod Kumar Ganjhu's family members. The Designated Authority under the UAPA passed an attachment order on 26 March 2019 on a prima facie satisfaction that the assets were acquired from the proceeds of crime. The Special NIA Court, Ranchi, dismissed the family's challenge on 18 July 2023, prompting the present appeal.

The three properties and the conflicting claims

Three assets were at the centre of the appeal:

  • A TVS scooty registered in the name of Sushila Devi, wife of Binod Kumar Ganjhu.
  • A JCB loader in the name of Vishwakarma Ganjhu, Binod's brother.
  • A two-storeyed house standing on land purchased in 1990 in the name of Bhaukri Devi, Binod's mother.

Sushila Devi argued that she is an employee of Central Coalfields Limited earning around Rs 82,000 per month and that she purchased the scooty in December 2018 from her own salary. Her counsel pointed out that the purchase took place nearly two years after the raid and that the vehicle was registered in her name. The legal heirs of Vishwakarma Ganjhu claimed that the JCB was purchased from his self-acquired income and a loan from SREI Equipment Finance Limited. They also contended that the house was a joint family property, with the land still standing in Bhaukri Devi's name, and that the family members were not accused in the case.

The NIA, however, maintained that the JCB owner had produced no income tax records, bank statements, loan sanction documents or repayment schedule to show that the vehicle was bought with legitimate funds. It also argued that no document explained the source of funds used to construct the double-storeyed building, which was occupied by Binod Kumar Ganjhu and his family.

The Scooty: no taint from marriage alone

The High Court accepted Sushila Devi's case. It noted her independent financial status and held that the NIA could not rely merely on her relationship with the main accused.

“The appellant no. 1 is an employee of Central Coalfields Limited and drawing a handsome salary. The purchase of the scooty cannot be said to be from the proceeds of crime on account of the self-acquired financial prowess of the appellant no. 1 and merely because the appellant no. 1 is the wife of Binod Ganjhu, the same would not persuade the court to subscribe to the contention of the NIA that the scooty was purchased from the proceeds of terrorism.”

The Court also rejected the trial court's focus on the absence of the mode of transaction. Sushila Devi had produced documents showing her ownership of the scooty, and the Bench said her claim could not be negated on that ground alone.

The JCB and the house: no legitimate trail

The same scrutiny produced a different result for the other two assets. Regarding the JCB loader, the Court found that the only document produced was a photocopy of an instalment receipt showing payment of Rs 82,000 to the finance company. Given the substantial price of the vehicle, the absence of any material showing the original owner's financial capacity or source of funds raised an adverse inference.

The house fared no better. Although the land had been purchased in 1990 in Bhaukri Devi's name, no sanctioned building plan, permission from authorities or construction-related records were produced.

“There is a total dearth of evidence that the house which was constructed was from a legitimate source of income.”

The mere assertion that the property was joint family property, the Court said, could not clothe it with legitimacy.

What the judgment means

The judgment is a significant clarification of the limits of property attachment in terror-financing cases. It underscores that suspicion cannot replace evidence and that kinship with an accused is not enough to treat an asset as tainted. At the same time, it places a clear burden on claimants to demonstrate the lawful origin of high-value assets with credible documentation.

In the result, the Court set aside the attachment of the TVS scooty and ordered its release in favour of Sushila Devi after verification of her identity. The attachment of the JCB loader and the two-storeyed house was affirmed, and the appeal was disposed of accordingly.