Jharkhand High Court
Mukesh Ganjhu @ Muneshwar Ganjhu vs National Investigating Agency on 22 December, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 436 of 2022
----
Mukesh Ganjhu @ Muneshwar Ganjhu, S/o late Sewak Ganjhu, R/o Village-
Kutil, P.O. P.S. Kunda, District-Chatra, Jharkhand.
....Appellant
Versus
National Investigating Agency. .....Respondent
Coram: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH
-------
For the Appellant : Mr. Rahul Pandey, Advocate
For the NIA : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Special P.P.
-----
08/ 22 /12/2022 Heard Mr. Rahul Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Amit
Kumar Das, learned Special P.P. NIA.
2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 6.4.2022, passed in Misc.
Cri. Application No. 75 of 2022, corresponding to Special (NIA) Case No.
03/2018 (S) ( R.C.-06/2018)/NIA/DLI (arising out of Tandwa P.C. Case No. 02 of
2016, passed by Shri Madhuresh Kumar Verma, learned Additional Judicial
Commissioner-XVI-Cum-Spl. Judge, NIA, Ranchi, whereby and whereunder the
prayer for bail of the appellant has been rejected.
3. A written report was submitted by Ramdhari Singh, Sub Inspector of
Police, posted at Simaria P.S. to the effect that on 10.01.2016 a secret
information was received by the Superintendent of Police that in Amrapali
Magadh Coal area in Tandwa some local people have formed an association
which is related to the banned extremist outfit 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, namely Gopal Singh Bhokta @ Brijesh
Ganjhu, Mukesh Ganjhu, Kohram Ji, Akraman Ji @ Ravindra Ganjhu, Anischay
Ganjhu, Bhikan Ganjhu, Deepu Singh @ Bhikan and Bindu Ghanju. It was also
alleged that if any businessmen hesitates to pay levy, they are threatened by
members of such organization and are also subjected to hardships. In order to
verify the truthfulness or otherwise of such information a raiding party was
constituted on the orders of Superintendent of Police, Chatra. A raid was
conducted in the house of the President of the Association-Binod Kumar Ganjhu
and from under his bed as well as from an almirah Rs. 91,75,890/- was
recovered. No satisfactory explanation could be submitted by Binod Kumar
Ganjhu with respect to the recovery of such a huge amount of cash. From the
house of Binod Kumar Ganjhu two persons were also apprehended who
disclosed their names as Birbal Ganjhu and Munesh Ganjhu and on search of
their persons a loaded Mauser pistol was recovered from the possession of
2 Cr. Appeal ( D.B.). No. 436 of 2022
Birbal Ganjhu while from the possession of Munesh Ganjhu a country made
pistol and two live cartridges were recovered. Both had confessed of being
associated with TPC organization. Binod Ganjhu had disclosed that he is the
President of "Magadh Sanchalan Samittee" and the levy collected is sent to
Gopal Singh Bhogta @ Brijesh Ganjhu and thereafter it is distributed between
Mukesh Ganjhu, Kohramji, Akramanji @ Ravindra Ganjhu, Anischyaji, Bhikan
Ganjhu and Deepu Singh @ Bhikan. He had further disclosed that Bindu Ganjhu
is a member of "Amrapali Sanchalan Samittee" who collects levy on behalf of
TPC and since he is at present in Jail the collection of levy is being done by
Pradeep Ram. On such information a raid was conducted in the house of
Pradeep Ram and from under his bed as well as from an almirah Rs. 57,57,710/-
in cash was recovered. No satisfactory explanation could be given by Pradeep
Ram with respect to the cash recovered.
4. Based on the aforesaid allegations Tandwa P.S. Case No. 02 of 2016 was
instituted for the offences under Sections 414, 384, 386, 387, 120B of the I.P.C.,
Section 25(1-b)(a), 26/35 of the Arms Act and Section 17 (1)(2) of Criminal Law
Amendment Act against Binod Kumar Ganjhu, Munesh Ganjhu, Pradeep Ram,
Birbal Ganjhu, Gopal Singh Bhokta @ Brijesh Ganjhu, Mukesh Ganjhu,
Kohramji, Akramanji @ Ravindra Ganjhu, Anischya Ganjhu, Deepu Singh @
Bhikan, Bindu Ganjhu @ Bindeshwar Ganjhu and Bhikan Ganjhu.
On 10.03.2016 charge sheet was submitted against the other accused
persons before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chatra. On 09.04.2017 on
the prayer made by the Investigating Officer offences 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. Since the offences involved
a scheduled offence, in exercise of powers conferred u/s 6(3) read with Section
8 of the National Investigation Agency, Act 2008, the Central Government vide
order dated 13.02.2018 had directed the National Investigation Agency to take
up the investigation of the case consequent to which Tandwa P.S. Case No. 02
of 2016 was reregistered as NIA Case No. RC-06/2018/NIA/DLI.
The first supplementary charge sheet bearing Charge Sheet No. 32/2018
was filed by the NIA on 21.12.2018.
5. It has been submitted by Mr. Rahul Pandey, learned counsel for the
appellant, that there is nothing on record to suggest that the appellant was a
member of the terrorist gang and that he was involved in collection of levy on
behalf of terrorist gang. It has further been submitted that the name of the
appellant has surfaced on the confessional statement of the co-accused
persons. Mr. Pandey has also submitted that no incriminating articles were
recovered from the conscious possession of the appellant. He has also
3 Cr. Appeal ( D.B.). No. 436 of 2022
submitted that the appellant is in custody since 19.01.2021 and there is no
chance of the trial being concluded in near future.
6. Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned Special P.P. NIA, has opposed the prayer for
bail of the appellant and has submitted that in course of investigation, it was
detected that the appellant is involved in collection of levy from coal
transporters/coal traders and D.O. Holders. It has further been submitted that
the appellant has twelve criminal antecedents, which involves the cases of
murder, extortion etc.
7. In the first supplementary chargsheet, the modus operandi of TPC has
been discussed and which reads as follows:-
"Therefore, from above it surfaces that the modus operandi of the
TPC is that they initially blocked the mining process in the Amrapali
and Magadh area and threatened the locals and CCL officials and
contractors. Then as part of a well planned conspiracy, they formed
the Village Committees with their own men in the forefront in
Amrapali and Magadh Coal projects of Jharkhand to start the mining
process. Subsequently, they imposed a levy amount on coal
transportation in the name of loading charges. Some amount does
go towards loading charges but a major share of it goes to the TPC
and their stooges in the village committee. The coal purchasing
companies and others purchase coal through auction from the CCL
and then engage transport companies for transportation of coal. It
is at this level that the levy is imposed of which the major share
goes to the TPC. The levy amount is drawn in cash by these
transport company owners and supplied to the TPC which carries
its activities in that area. Occasionally, the TPC leaders like A-14 and
A-15 used to call for secret meetings of the transporters and coal
purchasing companies and instruct them to provide funds timely
and in an organized manner."
8. In the supplementary chargesheet, the role of the appellant finds
place at paragraph 17.23, which reads as follows:-
"17.23 Role and activities of/offences established against
Mukesh Ganjhu @ Muneswar Ganjhu ( A-12): Therefore, as per
the averments made hereinabove/in the pre-paragraphs, it is
established that he is regional commander of TPC, active in Khalri,
Piparwar and Ashoka area under Latehar-Palamau region of
Jharkhand. He along with A-13, A-14 and others on the direction of
A-15 used to collect levy from contractors, businessmen. He, being
member of terrorist gang, was closely associated with top leaders of
the gang and used to extort levy from contractors and raised funds
for the terrorist gang. Therefore, it is established that Mukesh Ganjhu
@ Muneshwar Ganjhu (A-12), by becoming member of terrorist
gang/unlawful association TPC, proscribed by Government of
Jharkhand, assisted in the operations/management of TPC in
criminal conspiracy with members of the terrorist gang including A-
13, A-14, A-15 with intent to aid the above said terrorist gang
collected funds from illegitimate sources through extortion from the
contractors and thereby conspired with co-accused for terrorist act.
Thereby accused Mukesh Ganjhu @ Muneswar Ganjhu (A-12)
committed offences under sections 120B r/w 384 and 387 of the IPC,
sections 16, 17, 18 and 20 of the UA(P) Act, section 17 of the CLA
Act, 1908".
4 Cr. Appeal ( D.B.). No. 436 of 2022
9. It would thus appear that the appellant is closely associated with TPC
leaders of the terrorist gang and had also raised funds for the organization. The
activities of the appellant are further buttressed by the fact that he has twelve
criminal antecedents.
10. Section 43 (D) (5) of the UAP Act reads as follows:-
"(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code, no person accused
of an offence punishable under Chapters IV and VI of this Act shall, if in
custody, be released on bail or on his own bond unless the Public
Prosecutor has been given an opportunity of being heard on the
application for such release: Provided that such accused person shall not
be released on bail or on his own bond if the Court, on a perusal of the
case diary or the report made under Section 173 of the Code is of the
opinion that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation
against such person is prima facie true."
11. In "NIA Vs. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali" reported in (2019) 5 SCC 1,
it was held as follows:
"24. A priori, the exercise to be undertaken by the Court at this stage--of
giving reasons for grant or non-grant of bail--is markedly different from
discussing merits or demerits of the evidence. The elaborate examination
or dissection of the evidence is not required to be done at this stage. The
Court is merely expected to record a finding on the basis of broad
probabilities regarding the involvement of the accused in the commission
of the stated offence or otherwise.
25. From the analysis of the impugned judgment [Zahoor Ahmad Shah
Watali v. NIA, 2018 SCC OnLine Del 11185], it appears to us that the High
Court has ventured into an area of examining the merits and demerits of
the evidence. For, it noted that the evidence in the form of statements of
witnesses under Section 161 are not admissible. Further, the documents
pressed into service by the investigating agency were not admissible in
evidence. It also noted that it was unlikely that the document had been
recovered from the residence of Ghulam Mohammad Bhatt till 16-8-2017
(para 61 of the impugned judgment). Similarly, the approach of the High
Court in completely discarding the statements of the protected witnesses
recorded under Section 164 CrPC, on the specious ground that the same
was kept in a sealed cover and was not even perused by the Designated
Court and also because reference to such statements having been
recorded was not found in the charge-sheet already filed against the
respondent is, in our opinion, in complete disregard of the duty of the Court
to record its opinion that the accusation made against the accused
concerned is prima facie true or otherwise. That opinion must be reached
by the Court not only in reference to the accusation in the FIR but also in
reference to the contents of the case diary and including the charge-sheet
(report under Section 173 CrPC) and other material gathered by the
investigating agency during investigation."
12. It appears that one of the active members of the terrorist gang namely
Bindeshwar Ganjhu @ Bindu Ganjhu had moved this Court for grant of bail in Cr.
Appeal (D.B.). No.29 of 2021, which, however, was dismissed vide order dated
4.8.2022, against which, the said accused had moved the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. (s) 7609 of 2022 but the same was disposed of with
a finding that no case is made out to release the accused on bail. In the said case, a
further direction has been given to the learned trial court to conclude the trial within a
period of one year and the trial Judge shall proceed on day to day basis.
5 Cr. Appeal ( D.B.). No. 436 of 2022
13. Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned Special P.P., NIA, has submitted that the
prosecuting agency does not intend to examine all the witnesses and infact are taking
efforts to produce the witnesses so that the trial is concluded at its earliest.
14. The allegations against the appellant make out a prima facie case under section
43 (D)(5) of the UAP Act and in such circumstances, therefore, we are not inclined to
interfere with the order dated 6.4.2022, passed in Misc. Cri. Application No. 75 of
2022, corresponding to Special (NIA) Case No. 03/2018 (S) ( R.C.-
06/2018)/NIA/DLI (arising out of Tandwa P.C. Case No. 02 of 2016, passed by
Shri Madhuresh Kumar Verma, learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-XVI-
Cum-Spl. Judge, NIA, Ranchi, whereby and whereunder the prayer for bail of
the appellant has been rejected and accordingly this appeal stands dismissed.
( Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J)
( Ambuj Nath,J)
Rakesh/-
