Jharkhand High Court
Navinbhai Jayantibhai Patel @ Navin ... vs Union Of India Through National ... on 1 October, 2024
Author: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay, Sanjay Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal. (DB) No. 1474 of 2023
.....
Navinbhai Jayantibhai Patel @ Navin Patel aged about 44 years,
son of Late Jayantibhai Jivrajbhai Patel @ Jayantibahi Jivraj
Bhai Patel permanent resident of C 312-313, GIDC, Karamsad,
PO-Karamsad, PS-Karamsad, District- Anand (Gujarat)-388 210,
presently residing at Flat No. 202, Palak Crystal, Behing Marriott
Hotel, Ramdev Nagar, Ahmedabad, PO- Ramdev Nagar, PS-
Ramdev Nagar, District- Ahmedabad (Gujarat)..... Appellant
Versus
Union of India through National Investigating Agency, having its
office at NIA Camp Office, Quarter No. 305, Sector-II, PO-
Dhurwa, PS- Dhurwa, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand-834002
...... Respondent
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD
-----
For the Appellant : Mr. Balaji Srinivasan, Advocate
Mr. Niranjan Kumar, Advocate
Mrs. Nirupama, Advocate
For the NIA : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Spl.P.P.
......
C.A.V. on 16.08.2024 Pronounced on 01/10/2024
Per Sanjay Prasad, J. The present criminal appeal has been preferred
against the order dated 30.06.2023 passed by Sri Madhuresh
Kumar Verma, learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-XVI-
cum-Special Judge, NIA, Ranchi in Special (NIA) Case No. 02 of
2018, corresponding to R.C. No. 02/2018/NIA/DLI dated
19.01.2018 registered under Section 212/213/414/34 of the Indian
Penal Code and Section 13/17/40 of Unlawful Activities
(Prevention) Act, 1967 and Section 17 of Criminal Law
Amendment Act arising out of Bero P.S. Case No. 67 of 2016
dated 10.11.2016, whereby the Learned Court below has rejected
the bail application of appellant being Miscellaneous Criminal
Application No. 1571 of 2023.
2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 10.11.2016, on
receiving secret information, the informant namely Mr.
Bindeshwari Das, Officer In-charge of Bero P.S. registered an
information received regarding the associates of Supremo of PLFI
depositing ill-gotten money of crime proceed realized as extortion
of levy at SBI, Bero, Ranchi. After having informed his superior
authorities and having received their directives, he proceeded for
its verification alongwith other police officials and reserve guards.
At about 03.15 PM, he reached along with his team at SBI, Bero,
Ranchi, and after surrounding the same waited in ambush. In the
meantime, after having seen the police party, 3-4 persons making
hue and cry attempted to flee away with bag having articles
carrying in their hand, and one of the persons was apprehended
from campus of the Bank and three persons were apprehended
while boarding Safari Vehicle No. JH01Y 2898. On asking, the
persons apprehended disclosed their name as co-accused Binod
Kumar, Chandra Shekhar Kumar, Nand Kishore Mahto and Mohan
Kumar. The Informant conducted search of these persons in
presence of independent witnesses and alleged levy/extorted
amount of Rs. 25,38,000/- was recovered. The co-accused were
unable to show any document and one of the co-accused confessed
before the Informant that the PLFI Supremo Dinesh Gope had
instructed him on mobile phone after the Central Government
Policy of demonetization to deposit the amount.
3. It was further confessed by a co-accused that levied,
extorted money was given by PLFI extremist organization for
getting it converted white money by depositing in the name of the
said petrol pump. Accordingly, all the said articles were seized in
presence of independent witnesses and seizure list was prepared.
On these grounds, the informant claimed that these accused
persons were involved in the extortion of levied amount and such
ill-gotten money was being converted by hardcore outlawed PLFI
extremist people which is dangerous to the national interest and
helpful for the extremist organization. Accordingly, a First
Information Report was instituted against six accused persons
including four arrested persons namely Binod Kumar, Chandra
Shekhar Kumar, Nand Kishore Mahto and Mohan Kumar.
4. The Central Government in exercise of the power under
Sub-Section (5) of Section 6 read with Section 8 of the National
Investigating Agency Act, 2008, vide MHA New Delhi CTCY
Order No. 11011/51/2017/IS-IV dated 16.01.2018 suo motu
directed the NIA to take up the investigation of the case, and
accordingly, Bero P.S. Case No. 67 of 2016 dated 10.11.2016 was
re-registered as RC 02/2018/NIA/DLI dated 19.01.2018 under
Section 13,17, 40 of the Unlawful Activities ( Prevention) Act,
Sections 212, 213, 414, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section
17 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act.
5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant
that the judgment and order dated 20.06.2020 passed in Special
(NIA) Case No. 02 of 2018 by the learned Court below was
challenged before this Court in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 556 of
2020 and this Court had dismissed the appeal of the Appellant vide
judgment dated 06.05.2022 with observation to renew his prayer
for bail, if trial is not concluded within one year.
6. It is submitted that the judgment dated 06.05.2022 was
thereafter challenged in Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.
5418 of 2022 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, was dismissed as
withdrawn on behalf of the appellant on 18.08.2022.
7. It is submitted that recently a co-accused Jitendra Kumar
has been granted bail recently on 08.05.2023 by this High Court in
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 514 of 2020, inter alia, on the grounds
of time spent in custody and non-likelihood of completion of trial.
8. It is submitted that the charge sheet filed by the NIA
described the operations conducted by the accused nos. 1-6 named
in the initial case FIR by Bero PS as "First Module". Thereafter,
the charge sheet seeks to allege that the brother in-law of Dinesh
Gope, i.e., Sumant Kumar/ accused no. 7 and others set up the
"Second Module" for launching funds. However, the role assigned
to the Appellant is not of launching funds. There has been no
recovery of anything incriminating from the Appellant. This is
further supported by the fact that the Appellant was initially called
upon as a witness under Section 160 of the CrPC after lodging of
FIR on 29.04.2019.
9. Thereafter, the appellant was summoned from 27.07.2019
to 31.07.2019 during which time the NIA tortured and harassed the
Appellant, causing him to go through depression. This was
covered by the local media and was even recorded in the
order/proceeding of the learned Trial Court dated 20.06.2020.
10. The appellant was arrested on 31.07.2019 and has been in
custody since then.
11. The learned counsel for the appellant has tried to impress
upon the Court by referring the evidence of the prosecution
witness examined before the learned Trial Court mainly Rakesh
Bhatia examined as PW-47, Faisal Moosa examined as PW-4,
Satyen Joshi examined as PW-7, Sandeep Sharma, examined as
PW-9, Mukesh Kumar Sinha examined as PW-14, Anand Khot
examined as PW-32, Shailendra Kumar Ambast, (PW-79), Umesh
Rajak (PW-91), Najmul Hoda, (PW-92).
12. It is submitted that the Appellant is a family man, having a
wife and two children. While the Appellant has studied till 10 th
Class, his wife had studied up-to 8th. It is submitted that the
Appellant lost his father while the Appellant has been in custody
i.e. on 20.11.2019 and was not even permitted to attend his funeral
and last rites. Since the passing the Appellant's father, there is no
elder in the family to take care of his wife and children, who are
hand to mouth.
13. It is submitted that the learned Trial Court failed to
consider that the Appellant had always cooperated and participated
in the investigation. Notably, the Appellant had come to Ranchi
readily upon being summoned by the NIA under Section 160 of
the Cr. P. C. He was thereafter tortured by the NIA and was
subsequently arrested and arrayed as an accused. The Appellant
undertakes to join and assist the NIA and participate in trial
regularly before the learned Trial Court, if granted bail.
14. Leaned counsel for the appellant has raised number of
submission in support of his contention also.
15. Learned counsel is further submitted that one of the
co-accused namely Jitendra Kumar has already been granted bail
by the Division Bench of this Court in Criminal Appeal (DB) No.
514 of 2020 vide order dated 08.05.2023. Other Co-accused
namely Binod Kumar, Chandra Shekhar Kumar, Nand Kishore
Mahto and Rajesh Kumar @ Mohan Kumar has also been granted
bail by the Division Bench of this Court in Criminal Appeal (DB)
No. 201 of 2020 vide order dated 03.10.2023. The other co-
accused namely Jai Prakash Singh Bhuiyan has also been granted
bail by the Division Bench of this Court in Criminal Appeal (DB)
No. 14 of 2021 vide order dated 05.01.2024. It is submitted that
however, bail of the co-accused namely Fuleshwar Gope has
already been rejected by the Division Bench of this Court in
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 767 of 2022 vide order dated
21.03.2024.
16. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the
judgment rendered in the case of Gurwinder Singh Versus State of
Punjab and Another reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 109 and in
the case of Shoma Kanti Sen Versus The State of Maharashtra and
Another reported in 2024 INSC 269 and in the case of Kalyan
Chandra Sarkar Versus Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav and
Another reported in (2005) 2 SCC 42 and in the case of
Mohammad Irfan Rehmatali Shaikh Versus State of Maharashtra
passed in Criminal Appeal No. 350 of 2023 dated 29.08.2023 by
the Hon'ble Bombay High Court and in the case of Vernon Versus
State of Maharashtra and Another reported in 2023 SCC Online
SC 885 and in the case of Yedala Subba Rao and Another Versus
Union of India reported in (2023) 6 SCC 65 and in the case of
Jasbir Singh Versus State of Punjab passed in CRA-D-679-2022
vide order dated 13.12.2022 by the Punjab and Haryana High
Court and in the case of Ashim @ Asim Kumar Haranath
Bhattacharya @ Ashim Harinath Bhattacharya @ Aseem Kumar
Bhattacharya Versus National Investigation Agency reported in
(2022) 1 SCC 695 and in the case of Thwaha Fasal Versus Union
of India reported in (2021) 8 SCR 797 and in the case of Angela
Harish Sontakke Versus State of Maharashtra reported in (2021) 3
SCC 723 and in the case of Union of India Versus K. A. Najeeb
reported in (2021) 1 SCR 443 and in the case of Roopesh Versus
State of Kerala and Ors. passed in CRL. Rev. Pet. No. 732 of 2019
vide order dated 17.03.2022 by the Kerala High Court and in the
case of The State of Kerala and Ors. Versus Roopesh passed in
Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 6981-6983/2022 vide order
dated 23.09.2022 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and hence, the
appellant may be granted bail.
17. Learned counsel for the NIA has submitted that this
Criminal Appeal is devoid of merit. It is submitted that the trial is
at the fag end and has submitted that the prosecution is likely to
close its evidence within four (4) to six (6) weeks or maximum
within 45 days because the I. O. has to be examined. It is
submitted that the petitioner was one of the main accused, who
trying to secure surrender of prime accused-Dinesh Gope through
illegal activities in connivance with other accused persons. It is
submitted that trial is going on and 108 witnesses have been
examined so far and the trial is likely to be concluded shortly. It is
submitted that the appellant has received the amount of
Rs. 2,00,000/- in the first installment in Yes Bank account and has
further received Rs. 48,00,000/- from one Prasann Kumar Jain
(Hawala Operator) to facilitate the surrender of prime accused-
Dinesh Gope.
18. It is submitted that release of the accused at this stage
would prejudice the trial and the appellant may tamper with the
evidences. It is submitted that even the delay in trial has occurred
due to filing of W. P. (Cr.) No. 226 of 2023 before the Hon'ble
Division Bench of this Court, which was dismissed vide order
dated 14.03.2024 and thereafter against the order dated 14.03.2024
passed in W. P. (Cr.) No. 226 of 2023, the appellant had preferred
the Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 5615 of 2024, which is still
pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is submitted that the
bail of the several accused persons, who were involved in
channelizing the extorted money, have been rejected by this Court
in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1026 of 2019 (Sumant Kumar), Cr. Appeal
(DB) No. 59 of 2021 (Hira Devi), Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 544 of
2020 ( Arun Gope), Cr. Appl. (DB) No. 55 of 2021 (Amit Jaiswal)
respectively on 01.03.2021, 25.08.2021, 01.11.2022 and
13.02.2023 respectively and as such, the prayer for bail of the
appellant may be rejected.
19. It is evident that during conducting further investigation
by the NIA, first supplementary charge sheet was submitted on
20.10.2019 against eleven (11) accused persons and the appellant-
Navinbhai Jayantibhai Patel was arrayed as an accused no. 12 by
the NIA.
20. It further appears that even investigation NIA had
submitted 2nd supplementary charge sheet on 24.07.2020 against
seven (7) accused persons namely Shakuntala Kumar, Hira Devi
@ Anita Devi, Jaiprakash Singh Bhuiyan, Amit Kumar @ Amit
Jaiswal @ Amit Kumar Jaiswal, Fuleshwar Gope, M/s Bhavya
Engicon Pvt. Ltd., M/s Shiv Aadi Shakti Minerals Pvt. Ltd., M/s
Shiv Shaktisamridhi Infra Pvt. Ltd. It has been found during
investigation by NIA that the appellant- Navinbhai Jayantibhai
Patel was part of 2nd module for channelizing the illegitimate
money into legitimate means and was working for Dinesh Gope
(i.e. main accused no. 6) and which involved other accused
persons namely Sumant Kumar, Nandlal Swarnkar, Jitender
Kumar. Even the appellant was found involved in channelizing the
collected funds from illegitimate sources and despite knowing the
fact, the said fund are proceeds of levy collected from Contractors,
businessmen etc. and were being used for procurement of
explosives, arms and ammunitions and for committing disruptive
activities. Even before issuing charge sheet against him, the
appellant was given two notices under Section 160 of the Cr. P. C.
on 23.04.2019 and 29.04.2019 respectively.
It appears that the appellant had received extorted money
in cash of Rs. 2,00,000/- in his Yes Bank Account. It also appears
that A-7 i.e. Sumant Kumar and Jitendra Kumar i.e. A-11 had
received Rs. 48 Lakhs from one Prasann Kumar Jain (Hawala
Operator) and which was handed over to Nandlal Swarnkar @
Nandlal Soni, A-8 and Navinbhai Jayantibhai Patel, A-12 (i.e. the
appellant) in furtherance of the activities of PLFI.
21. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of Kalyan Chandra Sarkar Versus Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav
and Another reported in 2005 (2) SCC 42 that 2 nd bail application
is not maintainable in change of circumstances.
22. It further appears that bail of the accused persons, who
were involved in channelizing the extorted money have been
rejected by this Court in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1026 of 2019
(Sumant Kumar), Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 59 of 2021 (Hira Devi), Cr.
Appeal (DB) No. 544 of 2020 ( Arun Gope), Cr. Appl. (DB) No.
55 of 2021 (Amit Jaiswal) respectively on 01.03.2021, 25.08.2021,
01.11.2022 and 13.02.2023 respectively.
23. While rejecting the bail of the accused Arun Gope, the
Division Bench of this Court had taken note of the fact on
01.11.2022 that since 46 witnesses have already been examined,
had directed the Trial Court below to take all possible steps to
conclude the trial at the earliest.
24. It also appears from the supplementary affidavits filed by
the appellant that there are certain rectification and charges have
been amended and the learned Special Judge, NIA observed that
few of the contents of allegations levelled against him, which was
read over to him on the date of framing of charges, has not been
incorporated, due to inadvertent mistake and which requires to be
rectified and thereafter it was rectified vide order sheet dated
02.05.2024 by the learned Court below by observing that the Court
may alter or add any charge before pronouncement.
Thus even altercation in the charge is of minor in the
nature and no prejudice can be caused to the appellant.
25. It transpires that the charges were framed on 24.11.2021
under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 21 of
the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 on 24.11.2021 and
charges were altered vide order dated 02.05.2024 only with respect
to the allegation and the charges under Section 120-B of the Indian
Penal Code and Section 21 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention)
Act, 1967 remained the same.
26. At this stage, it will be relevant to quote Section 21,
Section 27 and Section 43(D) of the Unlawful Activities
(Prevention) Act, 1967, which are as follows:
"Section-21:- Punishment for holding proceeds of terrorism.--
Whoever knowingly holds any property derived or obtained from
commission of any terrorist act or acquired through the terrorist fund
shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend
to imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.
Section-27:- Issue of show cause notice before forfeiture of
proceeds of terrorism.-(1) No order forfeiting any proceeds of
terrorism shall be made under section 26 unless the person holding
or in possession of such proceeds is given a notice in writing
informing him of the grounds on which it is proposed to forfeit the
proceeds of terrorism and such person is given an opportunity of
making a representation in writing within such reasonable time as
may be specified in the notice against the grounds of forfeiture and is
also given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter.
(2) No order of forfeiture shall be made under sub-section (1), if
such person establishes that he is a bona fide transferee of such
proceeds for value without knowing that they represent proceeds of
terrorism.
(3) It shall be competent for the Court to make an order in respect of
the property seized or attached,-
(a) directing it to be sold if it is a perishable property and the
provisions of section 459 of the Code shall, as nearly as may be
practicable, apply to the net proceeds of such sale;
(b) nominating any officer of the Central Government or the State
Government, in the case of any other property, to perform the
function of the administrator of such property subject to such
conditions as may be specified by the Court.
Section 43-D:- Modified application of certain provisions of the
Code. --
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code or any other
law, every offence punishable under this Act shall be deemed to be
a cognizable offence within the meaning of clause (c) of section 2
of the Code, and "cognizable case" as defined in that clause shall
be construed accordingly.
(2) Section 167 of the Code shall apply in relation to a case
involving an offence punishable under this Act subject to the
modification that in sub-section (2),--
(a) the references to "fifteen days", "ninety days" and "sixty days",
wherever they occur, shall be construed as references to "thirty
days", "ninety days" and "ninety days" respectively; and
(b) after the proviso, the following provisos shall be inserted,
namely:--
"Provided further that if it is not possible to complete the
investigation within the said period of ninety days, the Court may if
it is satisfied with the report of the Public Prosecutor indicating the
progress of the investigation and the specific reasons for the
detention of the accused beyond the said period of ninety days,
extend the said period up to one hundred and eighty days:
Provided also that if the police officer making the
investigation under this Act, requests, for the purposes of
investigation, for police custody from judicial custody of any
person in judicial custody, he shall file an affidavit stating the
reasons for doing so and shall also explain the delay, if any, for
requesting such police custody.".
(3) Section 268 of the Code shall apply in relation to a case
involving an offence punishable under this Act subject to the
modification that--
(a) the reference in sub-section (1) thereof--
(i) to "the State Government" shall be construed as a reference to
"the Central Government or the State Government",
(ii) to "order of the State Government" shall be construed as a
reference to "order of the Central Government or the State
Government, as the case may be"; and
(b) the reference in sub-section (2) thereof, to "the State
Government" shall be construed as a reference to "the Central
Government or the State Government, as the case may be".
(4) Nothing in section 438 of the Code shall apply in relation to any
case involving the arrest of any person accused of having
committed an offence punishable under this Act.
(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code, no person
accused of an offence punishable under Chapters IV and VI of this
Act shall, if in custody, be released on bail or on his own bond
unless the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity of being
heard on the application for such release:
Provided that such accused person shall not be released on
bail or on his own bond if the Court, on a perusal of the case diary
or the report made under section 173 of the Code is of the opinion
that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation
against such person is prima facie true.
(6) The restrictions on granting of bail specified in sub-section (5)
is in addition to the restrictions under the Code or any other law for
the time being in force on granting of bail.
(7) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-sections (5) and (6),
no bail shall be granted to a person accused of an offence
punishable under this Act, if he is not an Indian citizen and has
entered the country unauthorisedly or illegally except in very
exceptional circumstances and for reasons to be recorded in
writing."
27. It further transpires that the appellant had filed W. P. (Cr.)
No. 226 of 2023 before the designated Court of this Court for the
following reliefs:-
"(i) For a declaration that there cannot be a charge bereft of the
materials collected during investigation and a trial based upon such
charge would be violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
(ii) For issuance of an appropriate writ of, or in the nature of
prohibition restraining the order dated 24.11.2021 in the Court of Sri
Madhuresh Kumar Verma, learned Spl. Judge (AJC-XVI) Ranchi from
proceeding with Trial of NIA (National Investigation Agency) case
R.C. Case No.2/2018 charges till the compliance of Section 211(5),
212, 213 is made and the trial of the petitioner be segregated as there
is/was no component of joint trial u/s 223 Cr.P.C."
28. It further transpires that even the appellant had challenged
order framing charges by filing W. P. (Cr.) No. 226 of 2023 before
the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court and vide order dated
14.03.2024, the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court has
dismissed the said W. P. (Cr.) No. 226 of 2023.
29. Therefore, it is evident that the appellant evenafter
rejection of the bail application before this Court, was taking
chance before this Court by filing different petitions and also for
delaying the trial to get benefit of the same.
30. It further appears that thereafter the appellant against the
order dated 14.03.2024 passed in W. P. (Cr.) No. 226 of 2023, the
appellant had filed the Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 5615 of
2024, which is still pending.
31. It is evident that this Court had rejected the bail of the
appellant on merits as it was satisfied that prima facie case is made
out against the appellant.
32. It also transpires from the pleadings and the case diary
submitted earlier by the NIA that the appellant was instrumental as
main person in securing surrender of the main accused Dinesh
Gope in the name of Home Minister and whereby amounting to
secure the surrender of extremists in the name of Home Minister
and which amounts to questioning the criminal administration of
justice by means of coins. Therefore, this Court finds that taking
lenient view for such a person would amount to destabilising not
only the police administration but also lives of citizens of this
country.
33. This Court refrains itself from giving any findings on the
question of evidence led before the learned Trial Court below.
Although deposition of certain witnesses have been brought on
record as this may cause prejudice to the learned Court below and
made affect the merits of the trial. The Trial Court should be
allowed to apply its mind independently and this Court is not
inclined to look into and evaluate the evidence of the prosecution
witnesses on merit at this stage.
34. Therefore, this Court refrains himself from observing the
evidence of prosecution witness, which have been filed on behalf
of the appellant as several prosecution witnesses have named this
appellant.
35. However, this Court also finds that there is money
transaction against two different accused persons including the
appellant of this case with regard to money and active involvement
of the appellant.
36. So far as judgment rendered in the case of Javed Gulam
Nabi Shaikha Versus State of Maharashtra and Another passed in
Criminal Appeal No. 2787 of 2024 arising out of SLP (Crl) No.
3809 of 204 vide order dated 03.07.2024 by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court is concerned, the same is not applicable in the facts and
circumstances of the case and in the above case, the bail of the
said accused was declined by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in
a NIA case and had remained in custody for around four (4) years
and it was with regard to allegation for recovery of 1193 numbers
of counterfeit Indian currency notes of the denomination of
Rs. 2,000/- from a bus stop at Terminal-II Chhatrapati Shivaji
Maharaj International Airport, Andheri and till that date, charges
were not framed by the learned Trial Court below. However, the
above case, the charges have been framed and the prosecution case
is on the verge of closure. Hence, the above judgment is not
applicable on the facts and in the circumstances of the case.
37. So far as the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Gurwinder Singh Versus State of Punjab and
Another reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 109 is concerned, the
same is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case.
38. Mere Delay in trial pertaining to grave offences cannot be
used as ground to grant bail by observing that prima facie case is
made out against the said accused. Although, the said accused was
in custody for last five (5) years.
39. So far as the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Shoma Kanti Sen Versus The State of
Maharastra and Anr. Passed in Criminal Appeal No. 2595 of 2023
vide order dated 05.04.2024 reported in 2024 INSC 269 is
concerned, the same is not applicable in the facts and
circumstances of the case because the case relates to giving
provocative speeches, which resulted into disruption of communal
harmony, violence and loss of life and the Hon'ble Supreme Court
has noticed that she had not delivered any provocative speech and
she was not named in the FIR in the initial and the allegation
against the said accused was that she participated in some
meetings and had made attempt to encourage women to join the
struggle for new democratic revolution, which do not reveal the
commission of an offence under Section 18 of UAP Act, 1967.
40. However, in the present case, there is direct allegation
against the appellant for trying to secure the surrender of terrorist
Dinesh Gope and had alleged to have received certain amounts in
his Bank Account and had also received certain amounts to the
extent of Rs. 48,00,000/-.
41. The learned Court below has observed that there is direct
and specific allegation against the appellant and there is evidence
that the appellant and other accused namely Nandlal Swarnkar @
Nandlal Soni, A-8 had received Rs. 48,00,000/- and which
appears to be prescribed manner. The Court below has further
observed that prima facie case is made out under Section 43 D
(5) of the U A (P) Act 1967, even the learned Court below has
discussed in its impugned order that several prosecution witnesses
namely Manish Sinha i.e. P.W.-63, Shri Weldon Anupam Lakra
i.e. P.W.-70, Shri Shailendra Kumar Ambasht, i.e. P.W.-85, Shri
Faisal Moosa, i.e. P.W.-56, Shri Satyen Bhai Joshi, i.e. P.W.-67,
Shri Sandeep Sharma, i.e. P.W.-84, Shri Rakesh Bhatia, i.e. P.W.-
86, Shri Umesh Rajak, i.e. P.W.-105, Shri Sunil Kumar Saw i.e.
P.W.-106, Shri Najmul Hoda, i.e. P.W.-107 and Sh. Anand Khot
i.e. P.W.-133 had also pointed out against the appellant. The
learned Court below has also discussed the documents numbers.
01, 51, 55, 56, 58, 59, 60, 65, 66, 68, 75, 76, 78, 83, 88, 89, 90, 91,
93, 98, 107, 188, 228, 231 and had pointed out that these
documents are against the appellant. Even the learned Court below
has pointed out that there are series of telephonic conversations
among the appellant and different co-accused persons Sumant
Kumar i.e. A-7, Nandlal Mahto i.e. A-8, Chandrashekhar i.e. A-9
and Jitendra Kumar i.e. A-11.
42. This Court finds from the submission of the learned
counsel appearing for the NIA that the prosecution case is likely to
be concluded within 45 days and as such, it is expected that the
prosecution will its close the case at the earliest.
43. Thus, in view of the above, I find no merit in this
Criminal Appeal and accordingly, Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1474
of 2023 is dismissed.
(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)
I agree
(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)
(Sanjay Prasad, J.)
Kamlesh/ N.A.F.R.
