Jharkhand High Court
Ajit Kumar Thakur vs Union Of India Through National ... on 13 July, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 999 of 2019
---
Ajit Kumar Thakur ... ... Appellant
Versus
1. Union of India through National Investigation,
NIA Building Opp Lodhi Rd., CGO Complex, Ministry of Home Affairs
Govt. of India, PO PS - New Delhi, Distt. New Delhi 110003
2. State of Jharkhand through Principal Secretary, Home Department
Govt. of Jharkhand, Project Building, PO PS - Dhurwa, Ranchi 834001
... ... Respondents
---
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
---
For the Appellant : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Senior Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Vikramjeet Banerjee, ASGI
---
C.A.V. Order
13.07.2022 Heard Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, learned senior counsel appearing
for the appellant and Mr. Vikramjeet Banerjee, learned ASGI appearing
for the respondent no. 1 - National Investigation Agency.
2. Aggrieved by the order dated 16.09.2019 passed by the
learned Judicial Commissioner cum Special Judge, NIA, Ranchi in
connection with Special NIA Case No. 3 of 2018 (RC-06/2018/NIA/DLI)
arising out of Tandwa P. S. Case No. 2 of 2016 whereby and whereunder
the prayer for bail of the appellant was rejected, the appellant has
preferred the present appeal under Section 21 of the National
Investigation Agency Act, 2008 ('NIA Act', in short).
3. A written report was submitted by Ramdhari Singh, Sub-
Inspector posted at Simaria Police Station to the effect that on 10.01.2016,
a secret information was received by the Superintendent of Police that in
Amrapali and Magadh Coal Area, Tandwa some local persons have
formed an association which is related to the banned extremist
organization outfit - TPC. The members of said organization were
extracting levy from the coal traders and D.O. holders by creating a fear
in the name of the extremists of T.P.C. - Gopal Singh Bhokta @ Brajesh
Ganjhu, Mukesh Ganjhu, Kohramjee, Akramanjee @ Ravindra Ganjhu,
Anischay Ganjhu, Bhikan Ganjhu, Deepu Singh @ Bhikan and Bindu
Ganjhu.
4. It has been alleged that if any of the businessmen hesitate to
pay levy, they were 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 the 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 his almirah Rs. 91,75,890/- cash was
recovered. No satisfactory explanation could be submitted by Binod
Kumar Ganjhu with respect to 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 Birbal Ganjhu while from the
possession of Munesh Ganjhu, a countrymade pistol and two live
cartridges were recovered. Both have confessed of being associated with
the T.P.C. organization. Binod Kumar Ganjhu had disclosed that he is
the President of Magadh Sanchalan Samiti and the levy collected is sent
to Gopal Singh Bhokta @ Brajesh Ganjhu and thereafter it is distributed
between Mukesh Ganjhu, Kohramjee, Akramanjee @ Ravindra Ganjhu,
Anischay Ganjhu, Bhikan Ganjhu, Deepu Singh @ Bhikan. He has
disclosed that Bindu Ganjhu is a member of Amrapali Sanchalan Samiti
who collects levy on behalf of TPC and since he is at present in jail, the
collection of levy is being done by Pradip Ram. On such information, a
raid was conducted in the house of Pradip 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 furnished by Pradip Ram with respect
to such recovery of cash.
Based on the aforesaid allegations, Tandwa P. S. Case No. 2 of 2016
was instituted for the offences under Sections 414, 384, 386, 387, 120 (B)
I.P.C., Sections 25 (1-b) (a)/26/35 of the Arms Act and Section 17 (1) (2)
of the Criminal Law Amendment Act against Binod Ganjhu, Munesh
Ganjhu, Pradip Ram, Birbal Ganjhu, Gopal Singh Bhokta @ Brajesh
Ganjhu, Mukesh Ganjhu, Kohramjee, Akramanjee @ Ravindra Ganjhu,
Anischay Ganjhu, Deepu Singh @ Bhikan, Bindu Ganjhu and Bhikan
Ganjhu.
5. In course of investigation Sections 16, 17, 20 & 23 of the
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as
'UAP Act') were added. Since the offence involved is a scheduled
offence in exercise of the power conferred under Section 6 (5) read with
Section 8 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, the Central
Government by order dated 13.02.2018 had directed the National
Investigation Agency to take up the investigation of the case and
consequently Tandwa P. S. Case No. 2 of 2016 was re-registered as NIA
Case No. RC-6/2018/NIA/DLI.
6. Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, learned senior counsel for the appellant
has referred to the various provisions of the U.A.P. Act while submitting
that the NIA does not have any jurisdiction to investigate the case since
the commission of offence by the members of TPC is not a scheduled
offence within the meaning of the NIA Act. Amplifying such
submission, Mr. Kumar has referred to Section 3 of the U.A.P. Act while
submitting that TPC has not been declared an unlawful association
though while taking recourse to Section 16 of the Criminal Law
Amendment Act, the State of Jharkhand vide notification dated
22.05.2009 has declared TPC as an 'Unlawful Association' from the date
of its formation and as such, the same will be governed by the Criminal
Law Amendment Act only. As a corollary to the non-declaration of
T.P.C. as an unlawful association in terms of Section 3 of U.A.P. Act, it
cannot also be declared as a 'Terrorist Gang' as envisaged in Section
2(1)(l) of U.A.P. Act. Reference has also been made to Sections 2 (1) (k)
and Section 15 of the U.A.P. Act, which denotes a 'Terrorist Act' and
which according to the learned senior counsel for the appellant would
not be attracted in the facts and circumstances of the present case. It has
been submitted that the appellant has been alleged to have organized a
meeting between the officials of CCL, TPC members and villagers and in
order to facilitate smooth functioning of Amrapali Coal Mines, the
appellant had inter-acted with the members of TPC for extortion of
money from transporters and local contractors for TPC and himself,
though it is not in dispute that 'Shanti Sah Sanchalan Samiti' was in
existence and the appellant had merely acted in terms of the policy of
CCL Management to cooperate with the villagers and the persons whose
lands were acquired for the purpose of providing compensation and
employment to them. Learned senior counsel has stressed that there
never was any conspiracy between the operatives of TPC and the
appellant as the meeting was attended in the presence and knowledge of
police officials, district administration and other senior functionaries of
CCL as per the policy of the management to run the closed unit situated
in naxal infested areas. In support of such contention, reference has been
made to some documents brought on record through supplementary
affidavits.
7. Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, learned senior counsel has referred to
the allegations made against Sudesh Kedia (A-19) to the effect that he
also colluded with the terrorist gang - TPC and others and
abetted/promoted and thereby strengthened TPC in criminal conspiracy
with the members of such outfit with an intent to raise funds for the
outfit through the co-accused. He used to pay levy of Rs. 200 per ton to
TPC/CCL and Village Committee Members for smooth running of
Amrapali and Magadh collieries. The said Sudesh Kedia has been
granted bail by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as reported in (2021) 4 SCC
704. Reference has also been made to the case of one of the co-accused
Sanjay Jain who was working as General Manager of M/s. Adhunik
Power and Natural Resources Ltd. and who was also alleged to be
instrumental in collection of levy has been granted bail by this court in
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 222 of 2019. The case of the present appellant
according to Mr. Kumar, stands on exactly similar footing to both of
Sudesh Kedia and Sanjay Jain. It has been submitted that though, it has
been alleged about collection of extortion money by the appellant and
even in spite of the disclosure statements of the witnesses, no recovery
has been effected from the appellant. The materials collected against the
appellant by the NIA do not prima-facie make out a case against the
appellant and therefore, the restrictions provided in Section 43 (D) (5) of
U.A.P. Act cannot be considered as a bar in grant of bail to the appellant.
The appellant is a retired employee of CCL and his past conduct does not
arise any iota of suspicion. One of the grounds for rejection of the bail
application of the appellant by the NIA Court in its order dated
16.09.2019 regarding charge having not been framed due to abscondance
of the appellant is a misnomer since on 15.12.2018, non-bailable warrant
was obtained by the prosecution and the appellant had approached this
court in W.P.(Cr.) No. 131 of 2019 and he had thereafter surrendered on
07.09.2019. Learned senior counsel has also referred to a judgment of the
Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of "Amarjeet Singh @ Amar
Singh Vs. National Investigation Agency" in ACRA-D_226-2021 as also
an order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to
Appeal (Crl. No. 5617 of 2021) which relates to grant of bail to an accused
when the incarceration in custody is for long and there is no chance of
the trial being concluded in the near future. On the parameters noted
above, learned senior counsel has prayed that the appellant be granted
bail.
8. Mr. Vikramjeet Banerjee, learned ASGI has drawn the
attention of the court to the first supplementary charge-sheet filed by the
NIA while submitting that the appellant is the main brain behind the
entire operation/scheme. He has referred to the charge showing the
break-up of village/Shanti Sah Sanchalan Samiti and other beneficiaries
with respect to Rs. 258/- per metric tonne and the share of CCL including
the appellant was fixed at Rs. 39/- per metric tonne. He has submitted
that the disclosure statements clearly indicate the active participation of
the appellant in criminally conspiring with the members of TPC in
raising terrorist funds.
9. The contention of the learned senior counsel for the
appellant that NIA does not have the power to investigate the case since
TPC has not been declared a "terrorist organization" under the UAP Act
has been refuted by the learned ASGI by referring to an order passed in
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 367 of 2020 and the findings recorded therein
have attained finality, since it has not been challenged before the higher
forum. Reference has also been made to the judgments in the case of
"Sudesh Kedia" (supra) and "Sanjay Jain" (supra) while pointing out
that both the said accused are victims and their roles are entirely
different from the present appellant as the present appellant had
received money and the entire scheme of operation was his brain-child.
Mr. Banerjee, has also referred to Section 43 (D) (5) of UAP Act and has
submitted that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the
allegations against the appellant is prima-facie true. The case against the
appellant having been found to be prima-facie true as his application of
discharge having been rejected upto this Court, the same is an additional
ground for rejection of the prayer for bail of the appellant. The second
supplementary charge-sheet reveals that the TPC was formed in 2002
after a number of cadres of the Communist Party of India Maoists in
Jharkhand walked out of their parent outfit and created TPC. Since its
inception, it has indulged in fratricidal clashes with other Maoist outfit in
Jharkhand. Mr. Banerjee has also referred to the case of "NIA Vs. Zahoor
Ahmad Shah Watali" reported in (2019) 5 SCC 1. He has also drawn the
attention of the court to the impugned order dated 16.09.2019 which
according to the learned ASGI has considered all aspects of the matter
and therefore no interference is necessitated in the same.
10. Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, learned senior counsel has in reply
submitted that 'Shanti Sah Sanchalan Samiti' is a peace loving Committee
and the appellant was not the sole person to organize its meetings and
decide the amount to be divided. He has further brought to the notice of
the Court that Sanjay Jain was also collecting levy from the transporters
and D.O. holders and the case of Sanjay Jain is therefore similarly
situated. It has been submitted that the charge has been framed and
considering the period of custody undergone by the appellant and there
being no chance of the trial being concluded in the near future, as 185
witnesses are to be examined, the present appeal deserves to be allowed.
11. The preliminary objection raised by the learned senior
counsel appearing for the appellant that NIA does not have the power to
investigate the case since TPC has not been declared a "terrorist
organization" under the UAP Act, has already been answered in the case
of the present appellant (Ajit Kumar Thakur Vs. Union of India and others in
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 367 of 2020) which was preferred against an
order refusing discharge and it was held as follows"
"32. It is not in dispute that the power of N.I.A. to investigate
is in relation to any schedule offence prescribed under the N.I.A.
Act. It is further not in dispute that the schedule to N.I.A. Act
contains UA(P) Act, but does not contain CLA Act. It is further
not in dispute that Tritya Prastuti Committee (TPC) is an
Unlawful Association declared by State of Jharkhand under CLA
Act, but no such declaration has been made with regards to Tritya
Prastuti Committee (TPC) under UA(P) Act, 1967.
33. It is the specific case of NIA as per the supplementary
chargesheet that Tritya Prastuti Committee (TPC) is a break-
away faction of CPI (M) is an unlawful association and also
indulged in terrorist activity by forming a terrorist gang. As per
the allegation, it had transpired that TPC was instrumental in
hurling several attacks by bombs upon Reserve Battalion in India
at Amrapali and was involved in other activities of extortion,
murder and bomb blasts. It has been alleged that the said
association used to raise huge funds and invest the same in
procurement of arms and ammunition for nurturing their
terrorist activities. Over the period, this terrorist gang which is
being run in the name of TPC has become a menace and has given
effect to various terrorist activities and NIA is presently
investigating following cases instituted against TPC and its
member/aids: RC 22/2018/NIA/DLI, RC 23/2018/NIA/DLI, RC
23/2018/NIA/DLI and the instant case. It has been alleged that
the present appellant was instrumental and was directly involved
in raising and collection of funds and for providing funds to TPC
and though TPC has not been declared as a terrorist organization
under UA(P) Act, but it is a break-away faction of a terrorist
organization CPI (M) organization and formed a terrorist gang.
Tritya Prastuti Committee (TPC) has already been declared as an
unlawful association by the State Government. As per the
chargesheet, there has been revelation of facts related to modus
operandi of extortion/ collection of levies from coal
traders/transporters/contractors by TPC and structural
organization of TPC. It was revealed during investigation that
before starting the Amrapali Colliery, TPC operatives used to
extort levy from local contractors executing public works in an
organised manner and in the year 2012, the work of Amrapali
coal mine was to start and all the villagers of affected villages
were approached by the accused including the appellant. A
meeting was held between officials of CCL and committee
members including villagers wherein demands for providing job
to one person from every family and compensation for land
acquisition of land were placed before CCL. At that time BGR
Company took the tender for removal of OB (over burden) and
digging out the coal, but villagers opposed the starting of colliery
work because their demands were not fulfilled by the CCL. The
present appellant, Ajit Kumar Thakur, the then General
Manager, CCL and the representative of BGR Company, Shri
Raghuram Reddy, approached the leaders of Tritiya Prastuti
Committee (TPC), to sort out the problem. TPC decided to
intervene in the matter of coal project for its own financial
interests and therefore, a meeting was organized to resolve the
matter and to start the mining work in the area. The meeting was
called and some prominent persons, from 5 adjoining villages,
joined the meeting. In the meeting, TPC leader Akraman ji
suggested that a committee of the villagers from all 5 villages
should be formed to address the issues arising due to mining in
Amrapali area. Accordingly, a committee was formed in the name
of "SHANTI SAH SANCHALAN SAMITI" for each village and
it was decided that each village will have 7 members (total 35
members having 7 members from each village) and it was further
decided in the meeting that Rs.254/- per metric tonne would be
collected from each transporter and delivery order holders, which
were to be distributed in the manner indicated in the submissions
of the learned counsel for NIA. Thus, prima-facie, on the basis of
the materials collected during investigation, it appears that the
accused persons joined hands with TPC for their personal gains
and also for generation of funds for terrorist activities and thus
formed terrorist gangs. The materials further reveal that, persons
other than the members of Tritya Prastuti Committee (TPC) were
also involved and included in the furtherance of terrorist
activities of Tritya Prastuti Committee (TPC). In aforesaid view
of the matter, non-declaration of Tritya Prastuti Committee
(TPC) as a terrorist organisation under UA(P) Act has no
bearing in the matter of competence of NIA to investigate the case
as the schedule to NIA Act, interalia, mentions UA(P) Act, 1967,
which includes terrorist gangs for which no separate declaration
under UA(P) Act, 1967 is required. Accordingly, the point no. 2
is also decided against the appellant."
12. So far as the role of the appellant is concerned, he has been
arrayed as A-10 in the first supplementary charge-sheet and it is depicted
that the appellant was the then General Manager of Amrapali and
Magadh Coal Area, Chatra, CCL and despite being a public servant, he
had criminally conspired with the TPC operatives and other co-accused
persons and abetted in collection of levy through coal transporters and
contractors and was also engaged in coal mining/extraction/production
related works for himself as well as for the TPC operatives and others
and thereby had abetted in raising terrorist funds. The first
supplementary charge-sheet was also submitted against Sanjay Jain (A-9)
and he was attributed to be involved in aiding the terrorist gangs in
collecting funds from illegitimate sources through extortion from coal
traders/contractors/transporters. Be it noted that the accused Sanjay
Jain was working as a General Manager in M/s. Adhunik Power and
Natural Resources Ltd., Kandra, Seraikella-Kharsawan and was alleged
to be closely associated with the operatives of the TPC. In the second
supplementary charge-sheet, the name of Ajay Kumar @ Ajay Singh and
Sudesh Kedia amongst others also featured and so far as Ajay Kumar @
Ajay Singh is concerned, he was working as a Manager in M/s. Adhunik
Power and Natural Resources Ltd. and was involved in making payment
of levy to TPC operatives on the direction of Sanjay Jain (A-9). So far as
Sudesh Kedia (A-19) is concerned, he is the proprietor of M/s. S. K.
Esskay Concast and Minerals Pvt. Ltd. and he used to attend meetings
with TPC leaders and had paid levy to TPC, CCL and the Village
Committee for smooth running of the business. It is alleged that Sudesh
Kedia had strengthened the terrorist organization with an intent to raise
funds for the said terrorist organization through the appellant and
others.
13. In the case of Sudesh Kedia Vs. Union of India reported in
(2021) 4 SCC 704, it was held as follows:
"13. While considering the grant of bail under 7 Cr. Appeal
(DB) No.535 of 2020 Section 43-D(5), it is the bounden duty of
the Court to apply its mind to examine the entire material on
record for the purpose of satisfying itself, whether a prima facie
case is made out against the accused or not. We have gone
through the material on record and are satisfied that the appellant
is entitled for bail and that the Special Court and the High Court
erred in not granting bail to the appellant for the following
reasons:
13.1. A close scrutiny of the material placed before
the Court would clearly show that the main accusation
against the appellant is that he paid levy/extortion amount
to the terrorist organisation. Payment of extortion money
does not amount to terror funding. It is clear from the
supplementary charge-sheet and the other material on
record that other accused who are members of the terrorist
organisation have been systematically collecting extortion
amounts from businessmen in Amrapali and Magadh
areas. The appellant is carrying on transport business in
the area of operation of the organisation. It is alleged in the
second supplementary charge-sheet that the appellant paid
money to the members of the TPC for smooth running of
his business. Prima facie, it cannot be said that the
appellant conspired with the other members of the TPC
and raised funds to promote the organisation.
13.2 Another factor taken into account by the
Special Court and the High Court relates to the allegation
of the appellant meeting the members of the terror
organisation. It has been held by the High Court that the
appellant has been in constant touch with the other
accused. The appellant has revealed in his statement
recorded under Section 164 CrPC that he was summoned
to meet A-14 and the other members of the organisation in
connection with the payments made by him. Prima facie,
we are not satisfied that a case of conspiracy has been made
out at this stage only on the ground that the appellant met
the members of the organisation.
13.3. An amount of Rs 9,95,000 (Rupees nine lakh
and ninety five thousand only) was seized from the house
of the appellant which was accounted for by the appellant
who stated that the amount was withdrawn from the bank
to pay salaries to his employees and other expenses. We do
not agree with the prosecution that the amount is terror
fund. At this stage, it cannot be said that the amount
seized from the appellant is proceeds from terrorist
activity. There is no allegation that the appellant was
receiving any money. On the other hand, the appellant is
accused of providing money to the members of TPC.
14. After a detailed examination of the contentions of the
parties and scrutiny of the material on record, we are not satisfied
that a prima facie case has been made out against the appellant
relating to the offences alleged against him. We make it clear that
these findings are restricted only for the purpose of grant of bail to
the appellant and the trial court shall not be influenced by these
observations during trial."
14. One of the co-accused Sanjay Jain has been granted bail by
this court in Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 222 of 2019. Recently a
Coordinate Bench of this Court had granted bail to Ajay Kumar @ Ajay
Singh in Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 535 of 2020.
15. So far as the evidence of the witnesses are concerned, the
statement of P.W. No. 60 recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. reveals that
'Shanti Sah Sanchalan Samiti' was formed in the year 2014 in Amrapali
Colliery on the direction of the appellant to ensure coordination and
resolve all disputes between CCL, BGR and the villagers.
Protected witness 'F' has stated that on several occasions, he had
given money to the appellant ranging from Rs. one lac to Rs. fifteen lacs
and Chhotu Singh was informed so that he may make entry in the
records.
P. W. No. 46 has stated about a meeting conducted by TPC in
which the appellant and other stake holders were present and the
modalities for starting dispatch of coal from Amrapali to Piprawar was
worked out.
Protected witness 'C' has stated about the appellant receiving
money from the office of Sri Balaji Transport and Roadways Pvt. Ltd.
16. Though certain allegations has been made by the witnesses
regarding the appellant receiving money from several sources, but it
appears that nothing was recovered from the appellant. There is no
allegation against the appellant of being involved in a terrorist act and he
seems to have acted as a conduit for the opening and running of the
colliery in a smooth manner and he had also participated in meetings to
iron out the demands and differences of the various stake-holders. The
responsibility of running the collieries and ensuring smooth
transportation of coal devolved upon the appellant in his capacity of
being the General Manager. Therefore, a prima-facie case under Section
43 (D) (5) of UAP Act is not made out against the appellant. Merely
because the discharge application of the appellant has been rejected upto
this court, the same cannot operate as a bar being an additional feature as
submitted by the learned ASGI as an application for bail and that of a
discharge operate on different fields. In this context, we may profitably
refer to the case of "NIA Vs. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali" (supra),
wherein, it has been held as follows:
"23. By virtue of the proviso to sub-section (5), it is the duty of the
Court to be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing
that the accusation against the accused is prima facie true or
otherwise. Our attention was invited to the decisions of this Court,
which has had an occasion to deal with similar special provisions in
TADA and Mcoca. The principle underlying those decisions may
have some bearing while considering the prayer for bail in relation to
the offences under the 1967 Act as well. Notably, under the special
enactments such as TADA, Mcoca and the Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, the Court is required to record its
opinion that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the
accused is "not guilty" of the alleged offence. There is a degree of
difference between the satisfaction to be recorded by the Court that
there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is "not
guilty" of such offence and the satisfaction to be recorded for the
purposes of the 1967 Act that there are reasonable grounds for
believing that the accusation against such person is "prima facie"
true. By its very nature, the expression "prima facie true" would
mean that the materials/evidence collated by the investigating agency
in reference to the accusation against the accused concerned in the
first information report, must prevail until contradicted and overcome
or disproved by other evidence, and on the face of it, shows the
complicity of such accused in the commission of the stated offence. It
must be good and sufficient on its face to establish a given fact or the
chain of facts constituting the stated offence, unless rebutted or
contradicted. In one sense, the degree of satisfaction is lighter when
the Court has to opine that the accusation is "prima facie true", as
compared to the opinion of the accused "not guilty" of such offence as
required under the other special enactments. In any case, the degree of
satisfaction to be recorded by the Court for opining that there are
reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against the
accused is prima facie true, is lighter than the degree of satisfaction to
be recorded for considering a discharge application or framing of
charges in relation to offences under the 1967 Act."
17. It has also to be borne in mind that the prosecution intends
to examine as many as 185 witnesses, exhibit 131 documents and there
are 66 numbers of material exhibits which the prosecution intends to
prove. The appellant who is a retired General Manager of Central Coal
Fields Ltd. is in custody since 07.09.2019. In the case of "Union of India
Vs. K. A. Najeeb" reported in (2021) 3 SCC 713, it was held as follows:
"17. It is thus clear to us that the presence of statutory
restrictions like Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA per se does not oust
the ability of the constitutional courts to grant bail on grounds of
violation of Part III of the Constitution. Indeed, both the
restrictions under a statute as well as the powers exercisable under
constitutional jurisdiction can be well harmonised. Whereas at
commencement of proceedings, the courts are expected
to appreciate the legislative policy against grant of bail but the
rigours of such provisions will melt down where there is no
likelihood of trial being completed within a reasonable time and the
period of incarceration already undergone has exceeded a
substantial part of the prescribed sentence. Such an approach
would safeguard against the possibility of provisions like Section
43-D(5) of the UAPA being used as the sole metric for denial of
bail or for wholesale breach of constitutional right to speedy trial."
18. In view of the discussions made hereinabove, we hereby
allow the appeal and set aside the order dated 16.09.2019 passed by the
learned Judicial Commissioner cum Special Judge, NIA, Ranchi in
connection with Special NIA Case No. 3 of 2018 (RC-06/2018/NIA/DLI)
arising out of Tandwa P. S. Case No. 2 of 2016 by which the prayer for
bail of the appellant was rejected.
19. The appellant shall be released on bail on usual conditions to
be decided by the learned Judicial Commissioner-cum-Special Judge,
NIA, Ranchi.
20. We make it clear that the learned trial court shall not be
influenced while conducting the trial of any of the observation made by
us in this order as such observations/findings are restricted only for the
purpose of grant of bail to the appellant.
21. This appeal is allowed.
22. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed off.
23. Let a copy of this order be sent through "FAX" immediately
to the concerned court.
(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J)
(Rajesh Kumar, J.)
R. Shekhar Cp 3
