Suli Kandir @ Suleman Kandir @ Suli @ ... vs The State Of Jharkhand
2024 Latest Caselaw 278 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Suli Kandir @ Suleman Kandir @ Suli @ ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 11 January, 2024

Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad

Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad

                                  Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.990 of 2023
                         1



 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
      Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No.990 of 2023
                        -----
Suli Kandir @ Suleman Kandir @ Suli @ Suleman aged
about 26 years, son of Martin Kandir, resident of village-
Dalbhanga, P.O. & P.S.- Kuchai,District - Seraikela-
Kharsawan.                          ...    Appellant
                        Versus
The State of Jharkhand                    ...    Respondent
                         -------
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
  HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
                         -------
For the Appellant   : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate
For the NIA         : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate
                      Mr. Saurav Kumar, Advocate
For the State       : Ms. Shweta Singh, A.P.P.
                            ------
                      th
Order No. 05/Dated 11 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 16.05.2023 passed by the AJC-XVI-

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

No.1149 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.990 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.990 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.990 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. On 07.09.2021 charge-sheet was submitted against

19 accused persons including the present appellant.

However, at the time of submission of charge-sheet the

present appellant was absconding, consequently non-

bailable warrant (NBW) of arrest was issued against him

and further in due process, the order under section 82

Cr.P.C. was also issued against him.

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

was arrested in connection with another case being Toklo Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.990 of 2023

P.S. Case no. 01/2022 and he was lodged in Mandal

Karagar at West Singhbhum. Accordingly, the present

appellant was produced and further remanded in the

instant case on 21.03.2022.

11. Consequently, the above-named appellant had

preferred regular bail application vide Misc. Cr. Application

No.1149 of 2023 before the NIA Special Court, Ranchi but

the same has been rejected vide order dated 16.05.2023

against which the present appeal has been filed.

Submission of the Learned Counsel for the Appellant

12. 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.

(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.

Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.990 of 2023

(iv) The appellant has been arrayed as an accused in the

instant case only on the basis of suspicion and police

obtained his signature on blank white paper forcibly

and the same has been converted into confessional

statement of petitioner which has got no evidentiary

value in the eye of law.

(v) The appellant has got no criminal antecedent. He is

in custody since 13.3.2021 i.e. almost three years

and the instant case is running at the stage of

evidence and as per impugned order prosecution has

examined 05 witnesses out of 148 witnesses as such

there is no chance to conclude the trial in near

future.

(vi) 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.

13. 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 Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.990 of 2023

considered, therefore, the impugned orders need to be

interfered with.

Submission of the Learned Counsel for the Respondent NIA

14. 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-sheer that the present

appellant and Sawan Tuti are the active over ground

worker of CPI Maoist banned organisation and as

such provisions of UA(P) Act 1967 will be applicable

in the present case.

(ii) 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

absconding accused persons including the present

appellant were part of the larger conspiracy hatched

with association and direction of armed cadres of CPI

Maoist and under the leadership of top cadres of the

CPI 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.

(iii) The appellant and others provided illegitimate source

of fund through extortion from local contractors by Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.990 of 2023

way of criminal intimidation knowing that such fund

is to be used by various organisation.

(iv) 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.

(v) 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.

15. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent, on

the aforesaid premise, has submitted that the impugned

order requires no interference by this Court.

Analysis

16. 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.

17. This Court, before proceeding to examine as to

whether the appellant has been able to make out a prima Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.990 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).

18. 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.

19. 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.

20. 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.990 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.

21. 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.

22. 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.990 of 2023

23. 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.

24. 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.990 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.990 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...."

25. 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.

26. 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.990 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."

27. 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.

28. This Court, on the basis of the abovementioned

position of law and the factual aspect, as has been gathered Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.990 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.

29. Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent is

kept on record wherein the charge-sheet dated 07.09.2021

has been appended as Annexure-A.

30. It is evident from the counter affidavit based upon

the material collected in course of investigation as in the

chargesheet that the appellant is charge-sheeted accused

(A-33) of the instant case and he is the named accused in

the FIR which is mentioned at serial no.24 of the accused

list of FIR named accused.

31. After investigation NIA submitted chargesheet

against the appellant under section 120B, 121, 121A, 302,

307, 333 and 353 of IPC, section 3 and 4 of the Explosive

Substance Act, section 16, 17, 18, 20, 38, 39 and 40 of the

UA(P) Act, 1967 by keeping investigation continued against

other accused persons u/s 173(8) Cr P.C.

32. Charge-sheet has been submitted after obtaining

sanction for prosecution from competent authority of vide

MHA order no F No.11011/25/2021/NIA dated 3.9.2021

and Deputy Commissioner vide order memo no. 360(B/

Vidhi dated 31.08.2021.

Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.990 of 2023

33. 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. Presently case record is

running for prosecution evidence.

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

NIA in his investigation found that cadre of the CPI (Maoist)

hatched conspiracy with the help of the appellant and other

accused persons which is mentioned in para 17.14.05 of

the chargesheet. For ready reference the aforesaid para is

being quoted herein under:-

"17.14.05: Role, Activities and offences established against the absconding accused persons namely, Suleman Kandir (A-33) & Sawan Tuti (A-42):

It is established that absconding accused A-33 & A-42 at the active OGW (Over Ground Workers of CPI(Maoist), a banned terrorist organization declared by the Government of India. On the basis of available disclosure statements and statements u/s 161& 164 of Cr.P.C., it is established that absconding accused persons A-33, & A-42, were part of larger conspiracy hatched with the association and direction of armed cadres of CPT (Maoist). That, on 04.03.2021, under the leadership of A-13, A-14 & A-43, top cadres of CPI(Maoist) had conspired and carried out an IED blast at Lanji Forest Hill area and resulting in the killing of 03 police personnel and causing serious injuries to three other police personnel. Further, A-33 & A-42 has assisted the top armed cadre of CPI(Maoist) i.e.. A-13, A- 14 & A-43 and participated in the criminal conspiracy with other Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.990 of 2023

members of banned terrorist organization CPI (Maoist), with intent to aid the said organization for collecting funds from illegitimate sources through extortion from the local contractors by way of criminal intimidation knowing that such funds are to be for used by terrorist organization for committing terrorist act, preparatory to the commission of terrorist act and were knowingly concealing / dishonestly retaining such extorted amount cash / proceeds of terrorism. Thereby, absconding accused persons A-33 & A-42 have committed offences u/s 120B, 121, 121 (A), 302, 307, 333 & 353 of IPC, Sections 3 & 4 of Explosive Substance Act and Section 16, 17, 18, 20, 38, 39 & 40 of UA (P) Act, 1967".

35. Thus, it appears from the aforementioned

paragraph of the charge-sheet that the appellant was

overground worker 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.

36. Further, on 04.03.2021 under the leadership of top

cadres of CPI Maoist had conspired and carried out an IED

blast at Lanji forest hill area and resulting in the killing of

the three police personnel and causing serious injuries to

the three other police personnel.

37. It has also come that A-33 and A-42 has assisted

the top armed cadres of CPI Maoist i.e A13, A-14 and A-43 Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.990 of 2023

and participated in the criminal conspiracy with other

members of the banned organisation CPI Maoist with intent

to aid the said organisation for collecting funds from

illegitimate sources through extortion from local

contractors by way of criminal intimidation knowing that

such funds are to be used by terrorist organization for

committing terrorist act, preparatory to the commission of

terrorist act and were knowingly concealing retaining such

extorted amount cash/proceeds of terrorism.

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

sheet that there is prosecutable evidence against the

appellant Suli Kandir @ Suleman Kandir @ Suli @ Suleman

which is supported by documentary as well as oral evidence

of the witnesses of chargesheet.

39. It appears that during investigation it has come on

record that the appellant is an over-Ground worker/courier

of CPI (Maoist), a proscribed terrorist organisation and he is

actively involved in collection of levies extortion of different

amounts from the contractors.

40. Thus, it appears from record that the appellant/

accused 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 to help the said terrorist Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.990 of 2023

organization and he acted in blatant contravention of laws

and impair the safety and security of citizens and the State.

41. The facts disclosed by the appellant were duly

corroborated during course of investigation by way of

statement of witnesses and thereby prima facie the

allegation as made against the accused/ petitioner appears

to be true.

42. Thus, from perusal of the various annexures and

paragraphs of the charge sheet, 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 and

collected or received funds for terrorist organisation CPI

(Maoist) knowing that such funds would be used for

terrorism.

43. Thus, it is evident that the appellant has link with

CPI and that he was actively participating and aiding to the

banned organisation. 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.

44. Learned counsel for the appellant has taken the

ground of custody and has also taken the aid of the Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.990 of 2023

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

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

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

judgment that in the instant case 148 witnesses are there

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.

46. 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 has direct nexus in commission of offence and

having a close association with the CPI (Maoist) a banned

organisation.

47. 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 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 the trial in near Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.990 of 2023

future has not interfere in the order granting bail to the

respondent-accused.

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

associate by giving direct aid to the Naxal outfit. 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.

49. Further it has come on record that the appellant

having nexus with the banned extremist organisation and

as such, submission has been made that the release of

appellants on bail would adversely affect the trial. 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.

50. This Court, after considering the above facts and

circumstance and after going through the chargesheet the

appellant wherefrom it is evident that there is direct,

specific and serious allegation against the appellant as he

has played very prominent role in conspiracy hatched by

top CPI Maoist leaders and further appellant with the help

of A-1, A-3, A-14, A-43 and others have conspired, made

recce of police party and provided logistic support to the top Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.990 of 2023

brass of CPI Maoist which necessitated IED blast in which

three police personnel were lost their lives is of the view

that on merit, the case of the appellant is not fit to be

considered for his release from judicial custody.

51. 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

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.

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

only 148 witnesses which is very much less in compare to

the 276 witnesses of aforesaid case and 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 Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.990 of 2023

reduced depending upon the situation and trial may be

concluded in shortest time period.

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

banned organization and he has got direct involvement in

the activities of the banned organization as per the

discussion made hereinabove.

54. 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.

55. 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.

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

illegality in the impugned order dated 16.05.2023 passed in

Misc. Cr. Application No.183 of 2023 by AJC-XVI-cum-Spl.

Judge, NIA, Ranchi rejecting the application of the Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.990 of 2023

appellant, as such order impugned requires no interference

by this Court.

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

hence, the same is accordingly, dismissed.

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

stands dismissed.

59. It is made clear that any observation made herein

will not prejudice the case of the appellant in course of

trial 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.