"The way in which you are going, it looks like you have a problem with a person for even reading a newspaper," the Supreme Court orally remarked on Thursday while dismissing a plea filed by the National Investigation Agency against the bail granted to an accused in a UAPA case.The NIA had approached the Supreme Court against the bail granted by the Jharkhand High Court to a General Manager of...
"The way in which you are going, it looks like you have a problem with a person for even reading a newspaper," the Supreme Court orally remarked on Thursday while dismissing a plea filed by the National Investigation Agency against the bail granted to an accused in a UAPA case.
The NIA had approached the Supreme Court against the bail granted by the Jharkhand High Court to a General Manager of a company in a UAPA case for allegedly associating with a Maoist splinter group named Tritiya Prastuti Committee(TPC) for extortion.
Assailing the order of the High Court, Additional Solicitor General SV Raju submitted before a bench comprising CJI NV Ramana, Justice Krishna Murari and Hima Kohli that the Manager used to collect extortion money on the direction of the Zonal Commander of TPC. He also urged that the accused was collecting money from the transporters and the DO holders for payment to TPC cooperatives.
"The way in which you are going, it looks like you have a problem with a person for even reading a newspaper. Dismissed," the CJI said.
The accused Sanjay Jain, a General Manager of M/s Adhunik Power and Natural Resources Ltd, was arrested in December 2018 on the allegation that he was closely associated with TPC in running an extortion racket. He was under custody since his arrest till he was granted bail by the High Court in December 2021.
The High Court bench of Justices Shree Chandrashekhar and Ratnaker Bhengra, while granting bail to the accused, had observed that UAPA offences are not prima facie attracted merely because he paid the amounts demanded by TPC.
"May be TPC is engaged in terrorist activities, the acts of the appellant in making payment of levy amount to TPC and meeting with TPC supremo are not covered under sections 17 and 18 of UA(P) Act", the HC observed in its order.
"We are of the opinion that it is not possible to hold that the appellant by his acts, such as, meeting Akraman Jee and making payment to Akraman Jee became a member of TPC. The embargo under sub-section (5) of section 43-D will apply when the prosecution satisfies the Court that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusations against the accused are prima facie true. In "NIA v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali" (2019) 5 SCC 1, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the degree of satisfaction to record a finding that a "prima facie" case is made out as compared to the satisfaction as regards "not guilty" is lighter in comparison," the HC bench said while granting bail.
The High Court also took into account the fact that chargesheet has been filed in the case and the trial had commenced.
"From statement of the witnesses, particularly, PW42 and PW43, we gather that the appellant cooperated with the investigating agency during search and seizure at his residence and he himself provided all necessary documents and informations to the raiding team. Before he was arrested on 13th December 2018, the appellant was called by NIA for questioning on nine occasions and there is no allegation that during the investigation the appellant did not cooperate or obstruct the investigation. It is also a matter of record that in course of search except entries in his laptop no incriminating article, such as, huge cash and jewelries worth an amount disproportionate to his income was recovered, and it is not a case set up by NIA that huge amount was deposited in his bank accounts", the HC order stated.
Case Title: Union Of India V. Sanjay Jain| SLP(Crl) No. 4602/2022