The Jharkhand High Court recently dismissed an appeal filed against the rejection of bail by the Special Court to a UAPA accused allegedly connected to the banned terrorist organization CPI(Maoist).

A division bench of Justices Sujit Narayan Prasad and Pradeep Kumar Srivastava observed, “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.”

“Thus, from perusal of the various annexures and paragraphs of the charge sheet, prima facie appears that the appellant (A-3) has associated himself with terrorist organisation CPI (Maoist) knowingly and aided the said organisation voluntarily and further he has provided logistics support to terrorist organisation CPI (Moiist), took part in meeting with its cadres and has collected or received funds from Sonu Singh (A-5) and others for terrorist organization CPI (Maoist) knowing that such funds would be used for terrorism,” the division bench added.

The above ruling came in an appeal preferred under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 directed against the order dated 13.02.2023 passed by the AJC-XVI-cum-Spl. Judge, NIA, Ranchi in a Misc. Cr. Application arising out of a case registered for the offense under Sections 386, 411, and 120B of the I.P.C., Section 17 of the C.L.A. Act and Sections 13, 16, 17, 20, 21 & 23 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, whereby and whereunder, the prayer for regular bail of the appellant has been rejected.

The prosecution's case leading to the Criminal Appeal originated on January 5, 2020, when the Inspector cum SHO of Chandwa police station received credible information about three individuals arriving at Budhbazar, Chandwa, on a motorcycle. The information indicated that they had collected levies from a contractor and were en route to deliver the funds to Maoist Ravindra Ganjhu.

It was argued that acting on this information, the SHO and his team reached near Shiv Mandir, Budhbazar, where they observed three individuals on a motorcycle heading towards the stadium where, upon noticing the police presence, the individuals allegedly attempted to escape but were pursued and apprehended.

Upon interrogation, they identified themselves as Rajesh Kumar Ganjhu, Baijnath Ganjhu, and Kunwar Ganjhu—the appellant. They confessed to being couriers for the terrorist organization CPI (Maoist), involved in levy collection and passing police information to Maoist cadres.

Consequently, a case was registered under various sections, including 386, 411, 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), section 17 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act (CLA Act), and sections 13, 16, 17, 20, 21, and 23 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UA(P) Act). Due to the seriousness of the offense, the Ministry of Home Affairs directed the National Investigation Agency (NIA) to take over the investigation.

During the investigation, the appellant Kunwar Ganjhu, along with co-accused Baijnath Ganjhu and Rajesh Ganjhu, filed a bail petition under section 167 of the Cr.PC before the NIA Special Court in Ranchi, but it was rejected on July 19, 2021. Dissatisfied with the bail dismissal order, Kunwar Ganjhu and his accomplices appealed to the High Court through a Criminal Appeal, which was rejected on November 29, 2022.

Subsequently, Kunwar Ganjhu filed a regular bail application before the NIA Special Court in Ranchi, but it was rejected on February 13, 2023. The present appeal has been filed against this rejection order.

The Court, at the outset, discussed some settled propositions of law and the relevant provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.

The Court, observed that the appellant had criminal antecedents and closed associates by giving direct aid to the Naxal outfit and the release of appellant on bail would adversely affect the trial. The Court further observed that it may influence the independent witnesses and may 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.

The Court took into consideration the submission made by counsel appearing for the NIA that NIA depending upon the situation would reduce the number of witnesses and try to conclude the trial without any unnecessary delay.

The Court opined, “After considering the aforesaid fact as referred hereinabove and based upon the investigation made against the appellant, wherefrom, it is evident that he is the active nexus with the Naxal outfit, having given aid to his brother, the accused no.4, in collecting the money which has been collected by him through levy and the appellant is having criminal antecedent which is of like nature, therefore, is of the view that the case of the appellant is not fit to be considered for his release from judicial custody.”

The Court asserted that the appellant was an active member of the banned organization and got direct involvement in the activities of the banned organization

“In view of the foregoing discussions, we find no illegality in the impugned order dated 13.02.2023 passed in Misc. Cr. Application No.183 of 2023 by AJC-XVI-cum-Spl. Judge, NIA, Ranchi, rejecting the bail application of the appellant and as such, the order impugned requires no interference by this Court,” the Court concluded while dismissing the appeal.

Appearance:

For the Appellant: Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate

For the NIA : Mr. Shashank Shekhar Pradad, Adv. : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocat

Case No.: Cr. Appeal (DB) No.358 of 2023

Case Title: Kunwar Ganjhu v Union of India

LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 12

Click here to Read/ Download Judgment