Jaiki Paradhi @ Jaiki @ Jk vs The State Of Jharkhand Through Nia
2024 Latest Caselaw 196 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Jaiki Paradhi @ Jaiki @ Jk vs The State Of Jharkhand Through Nia on 10 January, 2024

Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad

Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad

                                  Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.1141 of 2023
                         1



 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
      Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No.1141 of 2023
                        -----
Jaiki Paradhi @ Jaiki @ JK, S/o Patamudi Paradhi, aged
about 33 years, R/0 village- Hirapur, P.O. & P.S.- Barhi,
District - Katni, State- Madhya Pradesh
                                      ...   Appellant
                           Versus
The State of Jharkhand through NIA         ...    Respondent
                         -------
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
  HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
                         -------
For the Appellant   : Mr. Birendra Burman, Advocate
                      Md. Amanat Khan, Advocate
For the Respondent  : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate
                      Mr. Saurav Kumar, Advocate
                            ------
                      th
Order No. 04/Dated 10 January, 2024

Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.

1. The instant appeal preferred under Section 21(4) of

the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 is directed

against the order dated 10.05.2023 passed by the AJC-XVI-

cum-Spl. Judge, NIA, Ranchi in Misc. Cr. Application

No.1284 of 2023, (Special (NIA) Case No.02/2021)

corresponding to R.C. No.02/2021/NIA/RNC, arising out of

Toklo P.S. Case No.09 of 2021 registered for the offence

under Sections 147, 148, 149, 353, 120B, 121, 121A, 307,

302 and 333 of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.), Section 3/4

of Explosive Substances Act, Section 17 of the C.L.A. Act

1908 and under Sections 16, 20, 38 & 39 of the Unlawful

Activities (Prevention) Act 1967, whereby and whereunder, Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.1141 of 2023

the prayer for regular bail of the appellant has been

rejected.

Facts

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case leading to

this Criminal Appeal is that the superintendent of Police

Chaibasa, West Singhbhum, received information from

various sources regarding the movement of Anal Da @

Toofan Da @ Patriram Manjhi and Maharaj Pramanik @ Raj

Pramanik, both senior cadres of Central committee of CPI

Maoist, along with other cadres of their groups were

roaming in the hilly area of Lanji Mountain, under Toklo

Police Station, District- West Singhbhum and planning to

execute a big incident against security forces and disrupt

the development and direction of Superintendent of Police,

Chaibasa and senior officials, accordingly one special

operation was launched from the Darkada (Jharjhara) base

camp by the troops of Jharkhand Jaguar AG-II and C/197

CRPF BN.

3. It is further alleged that when informant along with

search parties reached near slope of Lanji Hill, the troops of

Jharkhand Jaguar AG II were on front and leading the

operation and troops of CRPF/ 197 BN was moving behind

the Jharkhand Jaguar AG-II. Suddenly, at about 8.30

hours a heavy blast took place from the left flank approx.

100-150 meters on the hill from the base of Lanji Hill. In Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.1141 of 2023

retaliation to the blast six rounds were fired by Constable

Vijay Yadav of Jharkhand Jaguar towards the hill for his

self-defence when the troops heard the sound of blast all

the operation team took position for a while.

4. In the meantime, Section Commander of the

Jharkhand Jaguar informed through wireless set that an

IED blast has taken place and five jawans of his team and

one Jawan of CRPF got injured and out of them three

become martyred and rest injured were rescued to Medica

hospital Ranchi. Later on, one head constable also attained

martyrdom after reaching Medica hospital, Ranchi,

Jharkhand.

5. Accordingly, a case was registered on the basis of

written report made by Sub-inspector of police Ramdeo

Yadav as Toklo P.S. Case No.09 of 2021 under Sections

147, 148, 149, 353, 120B, 121, 121A, 307, 302 and 333 of

the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.), Section 3/4 of Explosive

Substances Act, Section 17 of the C.L.A. Act 1908 and

under Sections 16, 20, 38 & 39 of the Unlawful Activities

(Prevention) Act 1967 (UA(P) Act 1967) against the thirty

three named accused persons along with 20-25 unknown

members of banned terrorist Organisation i.e. CPI (Maoist).

6. Later on, considering the gravity of the offence,

Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India vide order

dated 20.03.2021 directed National Investigation Agency Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.1141 of 2023

(NIA), Ranchi to take over the investigation of the Toklo

P.S.Case No.09 of 2021.

7. In compliance to the directions of the Ministry of

Home Affairs, Government of India, (Order No.

F.No.11011/25 dated 20.3.3021), NIA, Ranchi re-registered

the aforesaid case as RC-02/2021/ NIA/RNC dated

24.03.2021 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 353, 120B, 121,

121A, 307, 302 and 333 of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.),

Section 3/4 of Explosive Substances Act, Section 17 of the

C.L.A. Act 1908 and under Sections 16, 20, 38 & 39 of the

Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967 (UA(P) Act 1967)

against the accused persons.

8. After obtaining the administrative approval of the

competent authority the case docket and case exhibits were

transferred to the NIA by the Investigating agency and

accordingly investigation was taken up by the NIA.

9. Later on, it is surfaced that the present appellant

was arrested in connection with another case being

Kharsawa P.S. Case no. 105/2020 and he was in jail.

Accordingly, the present appellant was produced and

remanded in the instant case on 31.07.2021.

10. On 07.09.2021 charge-sheet was submitted against

19 accused persons and investigation continued further

against the two remanded accused persons including the

present appellant.

Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.1141 of 2023

11. On 25.01.2022 NIA filed the 1st supplementary

Charge-sheet against two accused persons including the

present appellant under sections 120B read with 307, 302

and 333 of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.), Section 4/6 of

Explosive Substances Act, and under Sections 16, 18, 20,

38 & 39 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967.

12. The appellant had preferred Misc. Cr. Application

No.308 of 2022 before the NIA Special Court, Ranchi but

the same has been rejected vide order dated 04.05.2022

against which the Appellant preferred Criminal Appeal (DB)

No. 383 of 2023 before this Court but the same was

dismissed as withdrawn on 12.04.2023.

13. Consequently, the above-named appellant had

again preferred the regular bail application vide Misc. Cr.

Application No.1284 of 2023 before the NIA Special Court,

Ranchi for regular bail but the same has been rejected vide

order dated 10.05.2023 against which the present appeal

has been filed.

Submission of the Learned Counsel for the Appellant

14. Learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the

impugned order on the following grounds:-

(i) The NIA has not established through its investigation

as to what terrorist act was committed by the

appellant and thus no offence under Unlawful

Activities (Prevention) Act can be said to be made out.

Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.1141 of 2023

(ii) The learned court below failed to appreciate and

consider that the appellant has no any nexus with

extremist organization, thus the appellant cannot be

brought within the ambit and scope of Act, 1967.

(iii) Appellant is quite unknown about the alleged offence

and he has got no connection with said crime and he

was not arrested from the place of occurrence.

Further No incriminating articles have been recovered

from the possession of the appellant.

(iv) The appellant is not named accused in the FIR and

he has been arrayed as an accused in the instant

case only on the basis of confessional statement of

co-accused which has got no evidentiary value in the

eye of law.

(v) The appellant used to sell Rurdrarakhsa Mala and for

that he was in contact with many people and he has

erroneously been implicated in the instant case.

(vi) The appellant has been remanded in the instant case

on 31.07.2021, since he was in jail in connection with

Kharsawa P.S. Case No. 105 of 2020 dated

25.12.2020 and instant case occurrence was caused

on 04.03.2021.

(vii) He is in custody in the instant case since 31.07.2021

i.e. almost 2 and half years and the instant case is Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.1141 of 2023

running at the stage of evidence and as such there is

no chance of conclusion of the trial in near future.

(viii) As per the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex

Court in the case of Union of India Vs. K.A. Najeeb

reported in (2021) 3 SCC 713 the personal liberty of

the individual has paramount importance, hence,

taking into consideration the period of custody, it is a

fit case where the appellant deserves to be released

from judicial custody.

15. Learned counsel for the appellant, on the aforesaid

premise, has submitted that the learned court ought to

have considered that aspect of the matter, while

considering the prayer for regular bail, but having not been

considered, therefore, the impugned orders need to be

interfered with.

Submission of the Learned Counsel for the Respondent NIA

16. While, on the other hand, learned counsel

appearing for the respondent NIA has defended the

impugned orders on the following grounds:-

(i) It is evident from the charge-sheet that the present

appellant has worked as aid to the proscribed

organisation as such provisions of UA(P) Act 1967 will

be applicable against the appellant.

Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.1141 of 2023

(ii) During investigation it has emerged that 700 kg of

Potash has been procured and supplied to the armed

cadres of CPI (Maoist) on multiple occasions by

present appellant from Beohari Madhya Pradesh and

entire network of obtaining explosive chemicals was

functioning on the direction and supervision of the

charge-sheeted accused person Maharaj Pramanik

and others.

(iii) The said potash was used by the armed cadres of CPI

(Maoist) as an explosive chemical used in IED blasts

and due to that few innocent government police force

members have lost their life.

(iv) On the basis of available disclosure statement and

statement under section 161 and 164 Cr. P.C of the

prosecution witnesses, it is established that the

present appellant was part of the larger conspiracy

hatched with association and direction of armed

cadres of CPI Maoist and due to his supplied potash,

Maoist carried out IED blast at Lanji forest resulting

killing of the three police personnel and causing

serious injuries to the few other Police personnel.

(v) Further the proviso as stipulated under Section

43D(5) of UA(P) Act put a complete embargo against

release of the accused persons, if prima facie case is Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.1141 of 2023

made out and allegation against the appellant is

serious in nature.

(vi) In this case there is prima facie case made out

against the appellant and chargesheet has been

submitted in which cognizance has been taken and

now after framing of charge case record is running for

prosecution evidence. Hence, seeing the seriousness

of the crime which is against sovereignty, unity,

Integrity of the country, it is not fit case to enlarge the

appellant on bail.

(vii) The ratio of judgment relied upon by the learned

counsel for the appellant as rendered by the Hon'ble

Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. K.A.

Najeeb (Supra), is not applicable in the instant case,

reason being that in the aforesaid case, nature and

background of the offence was different.

17. Learned counsel appearing for the State, on the

aforesaid premise, has submitted that the impugned order

requires no interference by this Court.

Analysis

18. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and

considered the finding recorded by learned Court in the

impugned order as also the charge-sheet.

19. This Court, before proceeding to examine as to

whether the appellant has been able to make out a prima Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.1141 of 2023

facie case for enlarging him on bail, deems it fit and proper

to discuss some settled proposition of law and the relevant

provisions of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967

(hereinafter referred to as Act, 1967).

20. The main objective of the Act, 1967 is to make

powers available for dealing with activities directed against

the integrity and sovereignty of India. As per Preamble, the

Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 has been enacted

to provide for more effective prevention of certain unlawful

activities of individuals and associations and dealing with

terrorist activities and for matters connected therewith.

Therefore, the aim and object of enactment of U.A.(P) Act is

also to provide for more effective prevention of certain

unlawful activities.

21. To achieve the said object and purpose of effective

prevention of certain unlawful activities the Parliament in

its wisdom has provided that where an association is

declared unlawful by a notification issued under Section 3,

a person, who is and continues to be a member of such

association shall be punishable with imprisonment for a

term which may extend to 2 years, and shall also be liable

to fine.

22. Clause (m) of Section 2 of the 1967 Act defines

"terrorist organization". It is defined as an organization

listed in the First Schedule. CPI (Maoist) has been listed at Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.1141 of 2023

Item no. 34 in the First Schedule. Chapters III onwards of

the 1967 Act incorporate various offences. Chapter IV has

the title "punishment for terrorist act". Clause (k) of Section

2 provides that "terrorist act" has the meaning assigned to

it under Section 15 and the terrorist act includes an act

which constitutes an offence within the scope of, and as

defined in any of the treaties specified in the Second

Schedule.

23. Further section 10(a)(i) of Act, 1967 provides that

where an association is declared unlawful by a notification

issued under Section 3 which has become effective under

sub-section (3) of that Section, a person, who is continues

to be a member of such association shall be punishable

with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two

years, and shall also be liable to fine therefore, so long as

Section 10(a)(i) stands a person who is or continues to be a

member of such association shall be liable to be punished.

24. At this juncture, it will be purposeful to discuss the

core of Section 43D(5) of the Act, 1967 which mandates

that the person shall not be released on bail if the court is

of the opinion that there are reasonable grounds for

believing that the accusations made are prima facie true

apart from the other offences the appellant is accused of

committing offences as stipulated under chapter IV and VI

of UA(P) Act, 1967.

Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.1141 of 2023

25. The reason of making reference of the provision of

Section 43D(5) of the Act that in course of investigation, the

investigating agency has discovered the material against

the appellant attracting the offence under various Sections

of UA(P) Act. Since, this Court is considering the issue of

bail based upon now also under the various sections of

UA(P) Act and hence, the parameter which has been put

under the provision of Section 43D(5) of the Act is also

required to be considered.

26. The requirement as stipulated under Section 43D(5)

of the UA(P) Act, 1967 in the matter of grant of regular bail

fell for consideration before the Hon'ble Apex Court in the

case of National Investigation Agency Vrs. Zahoor

Ahmad Shah Watali, reported in [(2019) 5 SCC 1]

wherein at paragraph 23 it has been held by interpreting

the expression "prima facie true" as stipulated under

Section 43D(5) of the Act, 1967 which would mean that the

materials/evidence collated by the investigation 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 has further been

observed that it must be good and sufficient on its face to

establish a given fact or the chain of facts constituting the Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.1141 of 2023

stated offence, unless rebutted or contradicted. 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. For ready

reference, paragraph 23 of the aforesaid judgment is

required to be quoted herein which reads hereunder as :-

"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 11 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 Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.1141 of 2023

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...."

27. It is, thus, evident from the proposition laid down

by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National

Investigation Agency v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali

(Supra) that it is the bounden duty of the Court to apply its

mind to examine the entire materials on record for the

purpose of satisfying itself, whether a prima facie case is

made out against the accused or not.

28. Further, it is settled proposition of law that at the

stage of granting or non-granting of the bail, 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 and the

elaborate examination or dissection of the evidence is not

required to be done at this stage. Reference in this regard Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.1141 of 2023

may be taken from the Judgment as rendered by the

Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ranjitsing

Brahmajeetsing Sharma Vrs. State of Maharashtra,

reported in (2005) 5 SCC 294. For ready reference the

following paragraph of the aforesaid Judgment is being

quoted herein under:-

"46. The duty of the court at this stage is not to weigh the evidence meticulously but to arrive at a finding on the basis of broad probabilities. However, while dealing with a special statute like MCOCA having regard to the provisions contained in sub-section (4) of Section 21 of the Act, the court may have to probe into the matter deeper so as to enable it to arrive at a finding that the materials collected against the accused during the investigation may not justify a judgment of conviction. The findings recorded by the court while granting or refusing bail undoubtedly would be tentative in nature, which may not have any bearing on the merit of the case and the trial court would, thus, be free to decide the case on the basis of evidence adduced at the trial, without in any manner being prejudiced thereby."

29. Further, it is the duty of the Court to record its

opinion that the accusation made against the accused

concerned is prima facie true or otherwise and such 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 charge-sheet and other material gathered by the

investigating agency during investigation.

30. This Court, on the basis of the abovementioned

position of law and the factual aspect, as has been gathered Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.1141 of 2023

against the appellant, is proceeding to examine as to

whether the accusation against the appellant is prima facie

true as compared to the opinion of accused not guilty by

taking into consideration the material collected in course of

investigation.

31. It is pertinent to mention here that the charges

under different heads were framed against the present

appellant and trial has also commenced.

32. Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent

wherein the 1st supplementary charge-sheet dated

25.01.2022 has been appended as Annexure-A.

33. It is evident from the counter affidavit that the

appellant has been charge-sheeted accused (A-12) of the

instant case.

34. After investigation NIA submitted chargesheet

against the appellant under section 120B (substantively) of

IPC, Section 4 and 6 of the Explosive Substance Act,

Sections 16, 18, 20, 38 and 39 of the UA(P) Act, 1967.

35. Accordingly, court of Spl. Judge, NIA took

cognizance in charge-sheeted Sections and after supply of

police paper, charge has been framed against the appellant

and other co-accused persons and trial has already

commenced.

36. It is evident from the perusal of charge-sheet that

NIA in his investigation found that cadre of the CPI (Maoist) Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.1141 of 2023

hatched conspiracy with the help of the supplied potash by

the appellant which is mentioned in para 17.10.2 of the

chargesheet. For ready reference the aforesaid para is being

quoted herein under:-

"17.10.2: Offences established against the arrested accused Jaiki Paradhi @ Jaiki @ JK (A-12) :

It is established from the investigation that A- 12 is an associate of CPI(Maoist), a banned terrorist organization declared Government of India. Accused A-12 procured potash from one Nyaz Ahamad, aged about 28 years, son of Mustaq Ahamad, resident of Beohari, PS Beohari, District Shahdol, Madhya Pradesh, a fire cracker shop owner. On receiving the potash from Nyaz, A-12 delivered the same to A-11 & A-7 at Chakradharpur, West Singhbhum, Jharkhand. A total of approximately 700 Kgs of potash has been procured by A- 12 on multiple occasions. The whole network of obtaining Potash was functioning on the directions and supervision of charge sheeted absconding accused persons A-13, A-14 and A-43. The said Potash was used by the armed cadres of CPI (Maoist) as an explosive chemical in IED blasts. Therefore, as per averments made in Pre-Paras, it is established that A-12 became a member of CPI (Maoist). A-12 had procured and provided Potash which was used in the incident at Lanji, resulting in the killing of 03 police personnel and causing serious injuries to 03 others. Thereby, accused A-12 has committed offences u/s. 120B (Substantively) of IPC & Sections 16, 18, 20, 38 & 39 of UA(P) Act, 1967 and Sections 4 & 6 of Explosive Substance Act".

Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.1141 of 2023

37. Thus from perusal of the charge-sheet it appears

that the present appellant (A-12) on the demand received

from Sukhram Ramtai (A-11), procure Potash from one

Neyaj Ahmad village Beohari District Sahdol, Madhya

Pradesh, a fire cracker shop owner, and on receiving potash

from Neyaj, the appellant delivered the same to A-11 at

Chakradharpur, West Singbhum, Jharkhand and A-11

along with A-7 received the consignment from A-12 on

multiple occasions and transported to the house of A-3

Nelson Kandir located at village Jongro, Kharsawa. A-3

further hand over the potash to A-33 Mangal Munda, A-34

Suleman Kandir and A-42 Sawan Tuti to deliver the same

to the armed cadres of CPI Maoist A-13, A-14 and A-42.

38. It appears that a total approximately 700 Kg potash

was procured on multiple occasions by A-11 and A-7 and

the same potash was delivered by the present appellant and

whole network of obtaining potash was functioning on the

direction and supervision of charge-sheeted accused

persons A-13, A-14 and A-43 and said potash was used by

the armed cadres of CPI (Maoist) as an explosive chemical

used in IED blast. The said facts were also corroborated

with the statement of protected witness F.

39. The role of appellant in the instant crime and

conspiracy is also mentioned in the second supplementary

chargesheet para 17.5.1. wherein A-1 had disclosed that Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.1141 of 2023

FIR named accused A-11 used to collect explosive materials

from the appellant and A-11 used to further deliver it to the

cadres of CPI Maoist. Further the role of appellant namely

Jaiki Paradhi @ Jaiki @ JK @ Jaiki @ JK (A-12) has also

been corroborated by another accused Nelson Kandir (A-3).

40. Further, role of the appellant (Jaiki Paradi A-12)

and other accused persons Sukhram Ramtai (A-11) also

found mentioned in para 17.6.1 of second supplementary

charge-sheet in the instant case wherein it is alleged that

Anal Da A-13, Maharaj pramanik A-14, Amit Munda A-43,

armed cadre of the CPI Maoist who are absconding were

running a network for the procurement and supply of

explosive chemicals, specially Potash which is an important

ingredient for assembling improvised explosive device (IED)

used to triggering blast targeting the security forces and

Nelson Kandir A-3, Sorto Mahli A-7, Sukhram Ramtai A-11,

Jaiki Paradhi @ Jaiki @ JK A-12, Mangal Munda A-33

,Suleman Kandir A-34 and Sawan Tuti A-42 were the

members of the said network.

41. Further the appellant in his confessional statement

accepted that he was using mobile number 8815346353

and 9630043951 and he was in contact with Sukhram

Ramtai (A-11), Sortho Mahli (A-7) (mobile no 9142660287

and 7033475762) Neyaj Ahmad 8871102403 and Nelson

Kandir A-3 (mobile no.6203556625 and 9508344017).

Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.1141 of 2023

42. During analysis of CDR of mobile numbers of

arrested accused persons, their association is corroborated

with the common inter connectivity chart of potash supply

chain.

43. Further, the case has also been supported by the

deposition of independent witnesses cited as protected

witnesses A, B, C D, E, F whose statements were recorded

under section 161 of Cr P.C and 164 of Cr.P.C.

44. It is pertinent to mention here that the appellant

was remanded in this case from Kharsawa P.S. Case no.

105 of 2020 dated 25.12.2020.

45. It has come on record that the appellant is having

two criminal antecedents of like nature and first one is

Kharsawa P.S. Case no. 105 of 2020 and second one is

Kharsawa P.S. Case no. 07 of 2021 registered under

sections 120B of IPC and under section 17 of CLA Act.

46. Thus, it appears from the aforementioned

paragraph of the charge-sheet that the appellant was

member of the CPI Maoist a banned terrorist organisation

declared by the Govt. of India and on the basis of available

disclosure statement under section 161 and 164 Cr P.C it is

brought on record that the appellant was part of the

criminal conspiracy hatched with association and direction

of armed cadres of CPI Maoist.

Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.1141 of 2023

47. Thus, it appears from the content of the charge-

sheet that there is prosecutable evidence against the

appellant which is supported by documentary as well as

oral evidence of the witnesses of chargesheet.

48. Further, it appears from record that the appellant

had a clear knowledge that CPI (Maoist) is a proscribed

terrorist organization and involved in many terrorist acts

across the State. Despite having such knowledge, he

continued his nexus with the said terrorist organization

and he acted in blatant contravention of laws and impair

the safety and security of citizens and the State.

49. Thus, from perusal of the various annexures and

paragraphs of the charge sheet, it prima facie appears that

the appellant has associated himself with terrorist

organisation CPI (Moist) knowingly and aided the said

organisation voluntarily to further its terrorist activities.

Recently, the Hon'ble Apex Court has also held in the case

of Arup Bhuyan Vrs. State of Assam & Anr., reported in

(2023) 8 SCC 745 that being a member of the banned

organization is also an offence under the UA(P) Act.

50. Learned counsel for the appellant has taken the

ground of custody and has also taken the aid of the

judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of

Union of India Vs. K.A. Najeeb (supra).

Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.1141 of 2023

51. It has been contended by taking aid of the aforesaid

judgment that in the instant case there is 169 witnesses

and there is no probability in near future that trial will be

concluded, hence, taking into consideration the period of

custody, and probable delay in trial, it is a fit case where

the appellant deserves to be released from judicial custody.

52. While, on the other hand, learned counsel

appearing for the respondent has seriously disputed the

aforesaid fact apart from the merit that the present

appellant is having a close association with the CPI (Maoist)

a banned organization.

53. The contention has been made that the judgment

relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant i.e. the

judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of

Union of India Vs. K.A. Najeeb (Supra), is not fit to be

accepted, reason being that in the said case, the Hon'ble

Apex Court taking in to consideration the huge number of

witnesses i.e. 276, put a pin-pointed question therein for

reducing the number of witnesses by the investigating

agency and when the same has been shown to be not

possible then the Hon'ble Apex Court, by taking into

consideration the period of custody and there is no

likelihood of conclusion of the trial in near future, has not

interfered in the order granting bail to the respondent-

accused.

Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.1141 of 2023

54. But here in the instant case, the appellant is closed

associate by giving direct aid to the Naxal outfit and

supplying 700 kg potash which was eventually used to

carry the IED blast which resulted into death of 03 police

personnel.

55. Further, on instruction, it has been submitted by

the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent-State

that the prosecuting authority depending upon the

situation will also reduce the number of witnesses and try

to conclude the trial without any unnecessary delay as

such in aforesaid fact the judgment as relied by the learned

counsel for the appellant is not applicable in the facts of the

instant case.

56. Further, it has come on record that the appellant

is having nexus with the banned extremist organisation

and having two criminal antecedents of similar nature as

such, submission has been made that the release of

appellants on bail would adversely affect the trial and he

may influence the independent witnesses, might tamper

evidence of this case and as such, his detention in judicial

custody is required for the fair trial of this case and for the

ends of Justice.

Summation

57. Considering the above facts and circumstance and

after going through the evidence of the prosecution Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.1141 of 2023

witnesses, case diary, chargesheet and other documentary

evidence recorded by the NIA it is evident that there is

direct and serious allegation against the appellant that in

connivance with A-11 Sukhram Ramtai, the present

appellant supplied potash, explosive chemical at

Chakradharpur station to CPI Maoist A-7 and further it was

handed over to A-3, A-33, A-34 and A-42 to deliver the

same to the armed cadres of CPI A-13, A-14 and A-42 who

used the said Potash in IED blast on 04.3.2021 when

armed troops were moving on the forward slope of Lanji

forest hills under PS Toklo in which three security

personnel were killed and few became seriously injured.

Therefore, allegation against petitioner appears to be very

serious in nature and a prima facie case is made out

against him.

58. So far as the argument regarding reliance having

been placed upon the judgment of Union of India vs. K.A.

Najeeb (Supra) is concerned, this Court is of the view that

in the facts and circumstances the aforesaid judgment will

not be applicable herein since in the said case altogether

276 charge-sheeted witnesses were to be examined and on

the pin-pointed question by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the

investigating agency has submitted that there is no

question of reducing the number of charge-sheeted

witnesses and in view thereof and considering the period of Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.1141 of 2023

custody, i.e., more than 5 and half years and also taking

into consideration the spirit of Article 21 of the Constitution

of India the Hon'ble Apex Court has not interfered in the

order by which the bail was granted to respondent-accused.

59. While, the fact of the instant case is that there are

only 169 witnesses which is very much less in comparison

to 276 witnesses of aforesaid case and the present

appellant is having two criminal antecedents of like nature.

60. Further, in the instant case it has been submitted

by the learned counsel appearing for the state on

instruction that in course of trial, the number of charge-

sheeted witnesses may also be reduced depending upon the

situation and trial may be concluded in shortest time

period.

61. Further, the appellant is the active member of the

banned organization and he has direct role as supplier of

the blast material as per the discussion made hereinabove.

62. This Court considering the aforesaid distinguishing

fact in the present case by taking into consideration the

active involvement of the appellant in the extremist

activities being direct associate of the banned organization

and further taking in to gravity of the offence, is of the view

that the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in

the case of Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb (Supra) is not fit

to be applied herein.

Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.1141 of 2023

63. It is pertinent to mention here that an application

for bail (Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 399 of 2022) has been

preferred by the co-accused persons namely Sorto Mahali @

Don @ Rava @Tiera Mahli (A-7) and Ramrai Hasda @

Ramrai Hansda (A-1) which has been dismissed vide order

dated 18.01.2023 by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court.

64. Accordingly, this Court, on the basis of the facts as

referred hereinabove and coming to the provision of Section

43D(5) of the Act, 1967 as also the judgment rendered by

the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Zahoor Ahmad

Shah Watali (supra) is of the view that it cannot be said

that the allegation levelled against the appellants is prima

facie untrue.

65. In view of the foregoing discussions, we find no

illegality in the impugned order dated 10.05.2023 passed in

Misc. Cr. Application No.1284 of 2023 by AJC-XVI-cum-

Spl. Judge, NIA, Ranchi rejecting the application of the

appellant, as such order impugned requires no interference

by this Court.

66. In the result, we find no merit in instant appeal,

hence, the same is dismissed.

67. Pending Interlocutory Application(s), if any, also

stands dismissed.

68. It is made clear that any observation made herein

will not prejudice the case of the appellant in course of trial Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.1141 of 2023

and view as expressed by this Court is only limited to the

instant appeal.

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)

(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)

Birendra/A.F.R.