Continued Incarceration Would Endanger His Life, Violate Article 21: Bombay HC On Bail To 72-Yrs-Old Alleged Naxal Operative In Gadchiroli Blast Case

A division bench of Justices V. G. Bisht and Revati Mohite Dere noted that -Satyanarayana was suffering from serious ailments, and bail can't be denied owing to the rigours under Section 43(D) of UAPA as there wasn't even a prima facie case made out against him.

"Totality of the material gathered by the investigation agency qua appellant accused and presented before us does not prima face point out the involvement of the appellant-accused in the aforesaid offences. Therefore, in our considered view, the embargo of Section 43(D) of U.A.P. Act is beyond invocation."

"…continuing to incarcerate the appellant in jail would only endanger his life and health and would be a gross violation of Article 21", the court noting that Rani is over 70 years old and suffers cerebral cavernoma. Further, Rane had no criminal antecedents.

On 1^st May 2019 fifteen policemen of Gadchiroli's Quick Response Team (QRT) and one civilian driver were killed in an IED blast. Over a month later Rani was arrested from Hyderabad with his wife, Nirmala Uppuganti. She succumbed to cancer earlier this year.

The couple was booked under Sections 302, 353, 120B, 147, 149, 427 of IPC, Sections 16, 18, 20, 23 of Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA), Sections 4 and 5 of Explosive Substances Act and Sections 5 and 8 of Arms Act. These provisions relate to murder, criminal conspiracy, terrorist act, attempt to cause explosion etc.

The NIA alleged that using the alias of "Kiran," Rani had participated in a conspiracy meeting in 2018, and also published anti-government literature in CPI(M)'s quarterly magazine.

However, the court found that while witnesses have mentioned a person named Kiran's involvement in conspiracy there wasn't any evidence connecting Kiran's name to Rani. Further, Prabhat magazine nowhere reflected the appellant's name as it editor, or printer or publisher.

Section 43D(5) Bail UAPA

The bench observed, "It is the duty of the Court to be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against such person is prima facie true."

Material collected by the investigating officer, must on the its face show the complicity of accused and the commission of the alleged offences. "It has to be based on reasonable grounds leading to the belief that the accusation against the accused is prima-facie true," the bench further emphasized.

The order was passed in an appeal under section 21 of National Investigation Agency Act 2008, by which appellant Rani was challenging the Special NIA Judge's order dated August 20, 2021 rejecting his bail application.

Ms. Payoshi Roy, counsel for the appellant, contended that the material on record does not substantiate any of the allegations and the appellant has been arrested and prosecuted only on the basis of suspicion.

The only basis for these allegations is that the prosecution claims appellant and his wife are members of banned organization CPIM. The allegation that he attended a conspiracy meeting in July 2018 has no substance. Further that the appellant had severe health conditions and restricted mobility. The charges haven't been framed yet and the trial will take a long time. Hence, the bail application should be allowed. Also, the prosecutor claims that the appellant is also known as Kiran Kumar but this has no basis in evidence.

Mrs. Aruna Pai, special public prosecutor cited quarterly edition of Prabhat magazine and submitted that the appellant is the publisher of the said magazine which contains the details of martyred comrades. This and various materials on record show that there is a prima facie case against the accused as the evidence suggests that the appellant and his wife are involved in unlawful activities of CPI (M).

The court said that the material and evidence presented by the prosecution doesn't point out the appellants involvement in the concerned offences. Hence, section 43D(5) of the UAPA cannot be invoked.

The court allowed the appeal and quashed the impugned order. The appellant was granted bail on furnishing a bond of Rs. one lakh and other conditions.