Jharkhand High Court: In an appeal by the appellant-accused against the order dated 22-03-2024, passed by AJC-XVI-cum-Special Judge, NIA, Ranchi, whereby the accused’s bail was rejected, the Division Bench of Rongon Mukhopadhyay and Deepak Roshan, JJ., stated that that the allegations against the accused itself were vague and generalized. The accused’s involvement in terrorist activities had to be founded upon specific evidence. Merely, alleging that the accused was a member of a terrorist gang closely associated with the top brass of such gang and was involved in various nefarious activities, without specifying instances would not cement such allegations into a concrete form.
Thus, the Court set aside the impugned order dated 22-03-2024 and released the accused on bail on usual conditions which was to be decided by the Trial Court.
Background
In the present case, a report was submitted by Sub Inspector of Police, Simaria P.S. that on 10-01-2016, a secret information was received by the Superintendent of Police that in Amrapali Magadh Coal area some local people have formed an association related to the banned extremist outfit Tritiya Prastuti Committee (‘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. It was also alleged that if any businessmen hesitate to pay levy, they were threatened by members of such organization and were also subjected to hardships.
Subsequently, to verify the truthfulness of such information a raid was conducted in the house of the accused. Under the accused’s bed and almirah, Rs. 91,75,890 was recovered. No satisfactory explanation was submitted regarding the recovery of such a huge amount of cash. Further, from the house of the accused, two persons were apprehended who disclosed their names as ‘B’ and ‘M’, and on search of their persons, a loaded Mauser pistol and two live cartridges were recovered. Both ‘B’ and ‘M’ also confessed of being associated with TPC organization.
Further, based on the allegations, a case was instituted and on 09-04-2017, and offences under Sections 16, 17, 20 and 23 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (‘UAPA’) were added.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court stated that the allegations against the accused itself were vague and generalized. The accused’s involvement in terrorist activities had to be founded upon specific evidence. Merely, alleging that the accused was a member of a terrorist gang closely associated with the top brass of such gang and was involved in various nefarious activities, without specifying instances would not cement such allegations into a concrete form.
The Court further stated that mere presence of antecedents would not lead to a presumption about the active involvement of the accused, without any material proof in support. The Court stated that it was aware about the settled law that in deducing whether a prima facie case was made out or not, the Court could not conduct a mini trial. Further, based on the materials mentioned in the Supplementary Charge-Sheet, no prima facie case was made out against the accused to deny him bail as per Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA.
Thus, the Court set aside the impugned order dated 22-03-2024 and released the accused on bail on usual conditions which was to be decided by the Trial Court. The Court clarified that the Trial Court should not be influenced while conducting the trial of any of the observations made in this order as such observations/findings were restricted only for consideration of bail to the accused.
[Bhikhand Ganjhu v. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine Jhar 2714, decided on 14-08-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Appellant: Balaji Srinivasan, Advocate.
For the Respondent: A.K. Das, Spl. P.P.
