Jaiki Paradhi @ Jaiki @ Jk vs The Union Of India Through National ...
2024 Latest Caselaw 10088 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Jaiki Paradhi @ Jaiki @ Jk vs The Union Of India Through National ... on 22 October, 2024

Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad

Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad, Navneet Kumar

   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
        Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No.1277 of 2024
                          -----
  Jaiki Paradhi @ Jaiki @ JK, S/o Patamudi Paradhi, aged
  about 34 years, R/0 village- Hirapur, P.O. & P.S.- Barhi,
  District - Katni, State- Madhya Pradesh
                                        ...   Appellant
                             Versus
  The Union of India through National Investigation Agency
                                                 ...       Respondent
                           -------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR
                                -------
  For the Appellant   : Mr. Rahul Pandey, Advocate
                        Mr. Ankit Apurva, Advocate
  For the Respondent  : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate
                        Mr. Saurav Kumar, Advocate
                              ------
                        nd
  Order No. 04/Dated 22 October, 2024

  Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.

1. At the outset, learned counsel for the appellant has

sought for leave of this Court to make necessary correction,

in the provision of law under which the instant application

has been filed, in the cause title of instant Interlocutory

Application by deleting '5 of the Limitation Act' and in place

thereof inserting '21(5) of the N.I.A. Act, 2008'.

2. Considering the nature of prayer, let necessary correction

be done by him in course of day in the instant Interlocutory

Application.

3. The instant Interlocutory Application has been filed for

condonation of delay of 07 days in filing the instant appeal.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

-1 -Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1277 of 2024

5. In view of the reasons assigned in the application, the

delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned.

6. Accordingly, Interlocutory Application being I.A. No.

10834 of 2024 stands disposed of.

Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1277 of 2024

Prayer

7. The instant appeal, preferred under Section 21(4) of the

National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, is directed against

the order dated 29.07.2024 passed by learned AJC-XVI-

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

No.2127 of 2024, [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,

the prayer for regular bail of the appellant has been

rejected.

Argument on behalf of the learned counsel for the appellant:

8. It has been contended on behalf of appellant that earlier

the prayer for regular bail of the appellant has been

-2 -Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1277 of 2024 rejected by this Court vide order dated 10th January, 2024

passed in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1141 of 2023.

9. Prayer for regular bail has been renewed before the

learned Special Judge on the ground of delay in trial.

According to the appellant, altogether 169 witnesses are to

be examined but still only 13 witnesses have been

examined and as such by making reference of Article 21 of

the Constitution of India, the prayer has been made for

renewal of regular bail by filing Criminal Misc. Application

No.2127 of 2024, before the learned AJC-XVI-cum-Spl.

Judge, NIA, Ranchi but the same was dismissed vide order

dated 29.07.2024 without taking into consideration the

aforesaid facts.

10. The order dated 29.07.2024 passed by learned AJC-

XVI-cum-Spl. Judge, NIA, Ranchi in Criminal Misc.

Application No.2127 of 2024 is under challenge by filing the

instant appeal.

11. Learned counsel for the appellant has further

submitted that altogether 169 witnesses are to be examined

out of which only 16 witnesses, the day when the instant

appeal was filed was examined and as per instruction, as of

now, total 29 witnesses have been examined and as such

there is no likelihood of conclusion of the trial at an early

date, hence keeping the appellant in judicial custody will

-3 -Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1277 of 2024 amount to violation of principle as laid down under Article

21 of the Constitution of India.

12. In order to strengthen his argument, the learned

counsel for the appellant has relied upon the judgment

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

Khan Vs. Union of India [2024 SCC OnLine SC 1945].

Argument by the learned counsel for the respondent- NIA:

13. While on the other hand, Mr. Amit Kumar Das,

learned counsel being assisted by Mr. Saurav Kumar,

learned counsel appearing for the respondent-NIA has

vehemently opposed the prayer for renewal of regular bail.

14. It has been submitted by referring to the order 10th

January, 2024 passed in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1141 of 2023

passed by this Court that the regular bail of the appellant

on earlier occasion was rejected.

15. It has been submitted by referring to paragraph 57

of the order dated 10th January, 2024 passed in Cr. Appeal

(DB) No. 1141 of 2023, wherein the culpability of the

appellant has been shown to be direct since it has been

referred therein that there is direct and serious allegation

against the appellant that in connivance with A-11

Sukhram Ramtai, he supplied potash, explosive chemical at

Chakradharpur station to CPI Maoist A-7, which

subsequently was handed over to A-3, A-33, A-34 and A-42

-4 -Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1277 of 2024 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.

16. It has further been contended by referring to

paragraph 59 wherein this Court, distinguishing the case of

Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb (Supra), has considered

the number of witnesses in the present case, i.e., only 169

witnesses, which is very much less in comparison to 276

witnesses in Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb (Supra),

therefore, principle laid down therein will not apply in the

instant case.

17. Further submission has been made that the present

appellant is having two criminal antecedents of like nature.

18. So far as the contention of the appellant regarding

delayed trial is concerned, it has been submitted on behalf

of respondent-NIA that the trial is in progress and as of

now out of 169 witnesses 29 witnesses have already been

examined.

19. Further, the learned Special Judge is now having

exclusive Court to deal with the NIA cases and as such it is

incorrect on the part of the appellant to take the ground

-5 -Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1277 of 2024 that there is no likelihood of conclusion of trial in near

future.

20. Learned counsel for the respondent-NIA has further

submitted by referring to the order passed against the co-

accused persons, namely, (i).Nyaz Ahmed; (ii).Mangal

Munda; (iii).Suli Kandir @ Suleman Kandir @ Suli @

Suleman and (iv).Sorto Mahali @ Don @ Raya @ Tiera Mahli

and Ramrai Hasda @ Ramraj Hansda, that their regular

bail applications have been rejected vide order dated

29.11.2022 in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1007 of 2022; order

dated 12.03.2024 in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1159 of 2022;

order dated 11.01.2024 in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 990 of 2023

and order dated 18.01.2023 in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 399 of

2022 and the case of the appellants stands on similar

footing

21. It has further been submitted that since the trial is

in progress and if at this moment the appellant will be

released on bail, there is every likelihood of hindrance to be

caused in conclusion of early trial as also there are chances

of tampering with the evidence of witnesses since in the NIA

matters the protected witnesses are to be examined and

there is every likelihood of disclosure of their identity which

ultimately will be fatal to the prosecution.

22. Further ground has been taken that 09 accused

persons are still absconding and if the appellant would be

-6 -Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1277 of 2024 released on bail there is every chance of trial to be

hampered.

23. Learned counsel for the respondent-NIA on the

aforesaid grounds has submitted that the impugned order

requires no interference by this Court and hence the

instant appeal is fit to be dismissed.

Analysis

24. This Court has heard learned counsel for the

parties, gone across the finding recorded in the impugned

order as also the allegations made and available in the FIR

and the material collected in course of investigation as also

the pleadings made in the memo of appeal and the counter

affidavit.

25. This Court has already dealt with the case of the

appellant in detail while dealing with the bail application of

the appellant in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1143 of 2023 which

was disposed of vide order dated 10th January, 2024.

26. It is evident therefrom as per the reference of the

prosecution story, as is mentioned at paragraph 2 to 13,

that:

27. 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,

-7 -Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1277 of 2024 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.

28. 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

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.

29. 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

-8 -Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1277 of 2024 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.

30. 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).

31. 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

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

P.S.Case No.09 of 2021.

32. 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.),

-9 -Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1277 of 2024 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.

33. 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.

34. 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.

35. 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.

36. 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.

37. The appellant had preferred Misc. Cr. Application

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

-10 -Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1277 of 2024 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.

38. 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 Criminal Appeal

being Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No.1141 of 2023 had been

preferred but the same was dismissed vide order dated 10th

January, 2024 by this Court.

39. While dismissing the said appeal this Court has also

considered the applicability of Section 43D(5) of the Act,

1967, as also the judgment rendered in the case of

National Investigation Agency Vrs. Zahoor Ahmad

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

40. This Court has also considered the judgment

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

reported in (2021) 3 SCC 713.

41. This Court has already given its finding

regarding applicability of Section 43D(5) of the UA(P) Act,

-11 -Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1277 of 2024 1967 in the matter of consideration of bail to an accused,

against whom material has been found in course of

investigation regarding the commission of crime under the

UA(P) Act, 1967.

42. This Court has already expressed its view that

parameter as has been laid down under Section 43D(5) of

the UA(P) Act, 1967 i.e., if the allegation is not found to be

prima facie true then only the consideration of bail is to be

there.

43. This Court has come to the conclusion that on the

basis of material collected in course of investigation, as had

dealt with at paragraph 57 of order dated 10th January,

2024 in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1141 of 2023 that the

allegation against the appellant is direct and serious and

the appellant in connivance with A-11 Sukhram Ramtai,

supplied potash, explosive chemical at Chakradharpur

station to CPI Maoist A-7 and further it was handed over to

other accused persons i.e., 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

in which three security personnel were killed and few

became seriously injured.

44. This Court has also considered the principle as has

been laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union

of India Vs. K.A. Najeeb (supra) as would be evident from

-12 -Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1277 of 2024 paragraph 58 to 60 of order dated 10th January, 2024

passed in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1141 of 2024 and

accordingly, the case of the appellant has been

distinguished to that of case of appellant in K.A. Najeeb

(supra).

45. For ready reference, relevant paragraphs of the

order dated 10th January are quoted as under:

"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.

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

-13 -Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1277 of 2024 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 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 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

-14 -Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1277 of 2024 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.

36.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 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

-15 -Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1277 of 2024 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".

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.

57. Considering the above facts and circumstance and after going through the evidence of the prosecution 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

-16 -Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1277 of 2024 (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.

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."

46. This Court considering the proposition of law as

laid down in the case of National Investigation Agency

Vrs. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali (supra) has found

ample material against the appellant and as such come out

with the opinion of availability of material against the

appellant and as such the case has been prima facie found

to be true against the appellant. Accordingly, prayer for

regular bail was rejected vide order dated 10th January,

2024 in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1141 of 2023.

47. The question, which has been raised that as of now

29 witnesses have been examined out of 169 witnesses, as

-17 -Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1277 of 2024 has been submitted on behalf of learned counsel for the

NIA, that now the learned Special Judge has exclusive

jurisdiction to try the cases of the nature of UA(P) Act, 1967

and the trial is at progress.

48. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gurwinder

Singh Vs State of Punjab and Another reported in 2024

SCC OnLine SC 109 wherein while dealing with the

principle that „bail is rule‟, the same has been differed so far

as ingredient if attracted under the offence as stipulated

under the UA(P) Act, 1967 is concerned.

49. It has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the

said judgment that balance is to be maintained under

Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the involvement

of the person concerned who has been found to have

attributability in commission of crime as stipulated under

the UA(P) Act, 1967.

50. The purpose for making such observation is that the

UA(P) Act is although is of the year 1967 but taking into

consideration the issue of national integrity, time and

again, several amendments have been incorporated e.g., in

the year 2013 by virtue of notification dated 01.02.2013

Section 15 has been inserted wherein the terrorist act has

been defined.

51. While Section 17 has been inserted by virtue of

notification dated 01.02.2013 which is with respect to the

-18 -Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1277 of 2024 punishment for raising funds for terrorist act. Meaning

thereby the penal provision, as was available in the year

1967, has been amended to tackle the situation of national

integrity.

52. As such the Hon'ble Apex Court while observing

that balance is to be maintained under Article 21 of the

Constitution of India and the national integrity, we are also

following the same taking into consideration the

attributability said to have been found by the investigating

agency upon the appellant as has been deal with at

paragraph 57 of the earlier bail rejection order of the

appellant.

53. Furthermore, the regular bail of the other co-

accused persons namely, namely, (i).Nyaz Ahmed;

(ii).Mangal Munda; (iii).Suli Kandir @ Suleman Kandir @

Suli @ Suleman and (iv).Sorto Mahali @ Don @ Raya @

Tiera Mahli and Ramrai Hasda @ Ramraj Hansda, has

already been rejected vide order dated 29.11.2022 in Cr.

Appeal (DB) No. 1007 of 2022; order dated 12.03.2024 in

Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1159 of 2022; order dated 11.01.2024

in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 990 of 2023 and order dated

18.01.2023 in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 399 of 2022.

54. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon

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

Jalauddin Khan Vs. Union of India (supra), therefore,

-19 -Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1277 of 2024 this Court deems it fit and proper to go through the law

down therein.

55. We have considered the said judgment but before

dealing with the said judgment it needs to refer herein that

the ratio of any decision must be understood in the

background of the facts of that case and the ratio of

judgment is to be applied on the basis of factual aspect

involved in each case, as has been laid down by Hon'ble

Apex Court in the case of Dr. Subramanian Swamy vs.

State of Tamil Nadu &Ors reported in (2014) 5 SCC 75.

For ready reference the relevant of the aforesaid judgment

is being quoted as under:

"47. It is a settled legal proposition that the ratio of any decision must be understood in the background of the facts of that case and the case is only an authority for what it actually decides, and not what logically follows from it. "The court should not place reliance on decisions without discussing as to how the factual situation fits in with the fact situation of the decision on which reliance is placed."

56. This Court has examined the factual aspect of the

case of Jalauddin Khan Vs. Union of India (supra)

wherein the said Jalauddin Khan is being prosecuted for

the offences punishable under

Sections 121, 121A and 122 of the Penal Code, 1860 (for

short, 'the IPC') and Sections 13, 18, 18A and 20 of

the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (for short,

'the UAPA'). A charge sheet was filed on 7th January 2023.

-20 -Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1277 of 2024 He is shown as accused no. 2 in the charge sheet and

applied for bail before the Special Court under the UAPA,

which was rejected. Hence, the appellant and some co-

accused applied for bail before the High Court but the

prayer for bail made by the appellant was rejected, while

bail was granted to a co-accused. Accordingly, the

appellant had preferred an appeal before the Hon'ble Apex

Court.

57. The learned counsel for the appellant has

contended that there is absolutely no material to link

the appellant with the offences under the UAPA and at

highest, the allegation is that the appellant's wife was

the owner of a building known as Ahmad Palace and

that the appellant had clandestinely shown that

premises on the first floor of the said building were

given on rent to one Athar Parwez - accused no. 1. The

allegation is that, the first-floor premises are being used

for objectional activities of an organisation called

Popular Front of India (PFI). It had been submitted that

taking the charge sheet as it is, no connection has been

established between the activities of PFI and the

appellant.

58. The Hon'ble Apex Court while allowing the bail to

the said appellant has observed that the Special Court and

-21 -Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1277 of 2024 the High Court did not consider the material in the charge

sheet objectively because on plain reading of the charge

sheet, it is not possible to record a conclusion that there

are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation

against the appellant of commission of offences punishable

under the UAPA is prima facie true. The Hon'ble Apex Court

has further observed that they have taken the charge sheet

and the statement of witness Z as they are without

conducting a mini-trial and it is impossible to record

a prima facie finding that there were reasonable grounds for

believing that the accusation against the appellant of

commission of offences under the UAPA was prima

facie true. Further the Hon'ble Apex Court has taken into

consideration that the said appellant has no criminal

antecedent.

59. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid pretext has

passed the order directing the said Jalauddin Khan to be

released on bail.

60. But herein so far as the fact of the present case is

concerned, the nature of the allegation is quite serious and

sufficient material has surfaced in course of investigation in

which the appellant has been found to supply potash, the

explosive chemical which was subsequently handed over to

other accused persons and they used the said Potash in

IED blast, when armed troops were moving on the forward

-22 -Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1277 of 2024 slope of Lanji forest hills under PS Toklo, in which three

security personnel were killed and few became seriously

injured. Further the present appellant is having two

criminal antecedents as such on this score the ratio of the

judgment rendered in Jalauddin Khan Vs. Union of India

(supra) is not applicable in the present fact and

circumstances of the case.

Conclusion

61. So far as the ground taken by the learned counsel

for the appellant that there is no progress in trial, the same

cannot be said to be correct since subsequently it has been

submitted that the day when bail application was rejected

by the Special Judge 16 witnesses were examined and as of

now, as per instruction by learned counsel for the appellant

13 more witnesses i.e., in total 29 witnesses have been

examined. Therefore, even as per the submission made by

learned counsel for the appellant, it cannot be said that it is

a case where the trial is not at all in progress rather the

trial is in progress.

62. The question has also been taken into consideration

by this Court that still nine accused persons are

absconding and if at this stage, the appellant will be

directed to be released on bail, the same will ultimately lead

to delay in trial.

-23 -Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1277 of 2024

63. Such consideration is being given by this Court in

view of the fact that in the matter of UA(P) Act, the trial is

based upon the testimony of protected witness so that the

identity of witnesses cannot be surfaced to anybody

otherwise there is every likelihood of taking away of the

said witness.

64. This Court considering the aforesaid fact is of the

view that the Constitution of India mandates to maintain

core of Article 21 of the Constitution of India in the matter

of commission of crime but the issue of national integrity is

also to be taken care of so as to maintain the balance.

Herein as of now 9 accused persons are absconding and

the nature of allegation is serious and sufficient material

has been found in course of investigation by the

investigating agency and also the appellant is having two

criminal antecedents of the like nature i.e., under the U.A.

(P) Act, 1967.

65. This Court has gone through the order passed by

the learned Special Judge and found therefrom that the

learned Special Judge has considered the fact in entirety

along with the allegation as per the first information report

and the charge-sheet and rejected the bail application vide

order dated 29.07.2024, on the parameter as stipulated

under Section 43(D)(5) of the U.A.(P) Act, 1967. The learned

Special Judge has also considered the complicity of the

-24 -Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1277 of 2024 appellant as available in the evidences of the prosecution

witnesses, case diary and other documentary evidences

collected by the investigating agency.

66. Thus, in view of the foregoing discussions, we find

no illegality in the impugned order dated 29.07.2024

passed in Misc. Cr. Application No.2127 of 2024 by AJC-

XVI-cum-Spl. Judge, NIA, Ranchi rejecting the application

of the appellant, as such order impugned requires no

interference by this Court.

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

hence, the same is dismissed.

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

stands dismissed.

69. We make it clear that the prima-facie findings

recorded in this judgment/order are only for considering

the prayer for bail. The reasons are confined to the case of

the appellant. The same will have no bearing on the trial

and cases of the co-accused.

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)

(Navneet Kumar, J.)

Alankar/ A.F.R.

-25 -Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1277 of 2024