The division judge bench of the Jharkhand High Court held that merely, alleging that the appellant is a member of a terrorist gang closely associated with the top brass of such gang and his involvement in various nefarious activities without specifying instances would not cement such allegations into a concrete form. The court granted bail to the accused involved in the case registered for the offences under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as the UAP Act for the sake of brevity).

Brief Facts:

The factual matrix of the case is that the secret information was received by the Superintendent of Police that some people have formed an association that is related to the banned extremist outfit TPC. The members of such associations were extracting levies from coal traders and DO holders by creating fear in the name of the extremists of TPC. Thereafter, a raiding party was constituted and a raid was conducted in the house of the President of the association Binod Kumar Ganjhu from under his bed as well as from an almirah Rs. 91,75,890/- was recovered and no plausible explanation was given. Furthermore, from the house of Binod Kumar, two persons were also apprehended who confessed to being associated with TPC organization. After that, the case was instituted for the offenses under Sections 414, 384, 386, 387, 120B of the I.P.C., Section 25(1-B)(a), 26 and 35 of the Arms Act and Section 17 (1)(2) of Criminal Law Amendment Act. Furthermore, offenses under Sections 16, 17, 20, and 23 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as the UAP Act for the sake of brevity) were added. The prayer of bail was rejected by the learned special judge. Therefore, the present appeal is filed.

Contentions of the Appellant:

The Appellant submitted that the allegations against the appellant are generic in nature. It was furthermore submitted that in most of the cases against the Appellant, the Appellant has either been acquitted or has been granted bail. Also, no prima facie case is made out against the Appellant and consequently, the embargo for grant of bail in terms of Section 43D (5) of the UAP Act will not operate.

Contentions of the State:

The state submitted that the Appellant has nine criminal antecedents which include murder, criminal intimidation, extortion etc. which indicates that the appellant is a dreaded criminal in the area. It was furthermore submitted that the Appellant being the zonal Commander was an active member of the TPC. Also, the trial is likely to be concluded as only one witness is left to be examined.

The state relied upon the judgment titled Gurwinder Singh versus State of Punjab and Another.

Observations of the Court:

The Hon’ble Court observed that the allegations are vague and generalized. It would not be sufficient to merely state that the appellant is a member of a terrorist gang that is intimately connected to its leaders and that he has engaged in a number of criminal activities without providing specific instances.

The court furthermore observed that mere presence of antecedents would not lead to a presumption about the active involvement of the appellant in the instant case without there being any material in support thereof.

The court noted that it is a settled principle of law that in determining whether a prima facie case is made out or not court cannot conduct a mini-trial. Also, from the material available the court furthermore noted that no prima facie case is made out against the appellant to deny him bail in terms of Section 43D(5) of the UAP Act.

Based on these considerations, The court set aside the order passed by the learned special judge.

The decision of the court:

With the above direction, the court allowed the appeal.

Case Title: Bhikhan Ganjhu V. Union of India

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rongon Mukhopadhyay, and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Roshan

Case No.: Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 554 of 2024

Advocate for the Appellant: Mr. Balaji Srinivasan, Advocate

Advocate for the NIA: Mr. A.K. Das, Spl. P.P.

Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com

Picture Source :

 
Prerna Pahwa