Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 712 (JHR)

Anem Hassa Purty @ Anem v. State of Jharkhand

2025-03-03

PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

body2025
ORDER : 1. The instant appeal filed under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, is directed against the order dated 16.11.2024 passed in M.C.A. No. 2823 of 2024 by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner, XVI- cum-Special Judge, NIA, Ranchi in connection with Special NIA Case No. 04 of 2020(S), RC 39/2020/NIA/Delhi arising out of Tiruldih P.S. Case No. 16 of 2019, registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 379, 302, 353 and 435 of the Indian Penal Code; under Section 27 of the Arms Act and under Section 17 of the CLA as well as under Section 13 of U.A.(P) Act; subsequently second supplementary charge-sheet was submitted under Sections 120(B), 121, 121(A), 396 IPC and under Sections 16, 18, 20, 38 and 39 of the U.A. (P) Act, whereby and whereunder the prayer for regular bail of the appellant has been rejected. 2. It has been contended on behalf of appellant that the appellant is not named in the FIR and no specific attributablity has been assigned against the appellant and name of the appellant has come in the confessional statement of co-accused. It has further been submitted that neither any incriminating materials has been recovered from the possession of the appellant nor any arms or ammunitions has been recovered from the possession of the appellant. Further, he has no concern with any CPI Maoist Organization. He is languishing in judicial custody since19.03.2024. 3. Therefore, submission has been made by learned counsel for the appellant that the impugned order may be quashed and set aside. 4. While on the other hand, learned counsel for the Opp. Parties has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that during investigation it was established that the appellant was associated with co-accused Maharaj Pramanik. He used to provide logistics support to said co- accused Maharaj Pramanik and was a member of the proscribed organization, namely, CIP (Maoist). 5. Further submission has been made that role of the present appellant has been described in the 2nd Supplementary Charge-sheet at paragraph 17.36.8. 6. Furthermore, prayer for bail of the other similarly co- accused persons has been rejected by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1539 of 2022 vide order dated 18.08.2023; Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1547 of 2022 dated 18.08.2023;Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1272 of 2022 vide order dated 17.01.2023; Cr. 6. Furthermore, prayer for bail of the other similarly co- accused persons has been rejected by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1539 of 2022 vide order dated 18.08.2023; Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1547 of 2022 dated 18.08.2023;Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1272 of 2022 vide order dated 17.01.2023; Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 234 of 2022 vide order dated 21.09.2022 and Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1226 of 2022 vide order dated 17.01.2023. 7. Therefore, submission has been made that the impugned order requires no interference by this Court. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone across the finding recorded by the learned court in the impugned order as also order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench rejecting the prayer for bail of the co-accused persons. 9. This Court, before proceeding to examine as to whether the appellant has been able to make out a prima facie case for enlarging him on bail, deems it fit and proper to discuss some settled proposition of law and the relevant provisions of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967(hereinafter referred to as Act, 1967) which is required to be considered herein. 10. The main objective of the Act, 1967 is to make powers available for dealing with activities directed against the integrity and sovereignty of India. As per Preamble, Act, 1967 has been enacted to provide for the more effective prevention of certain unlawful activities of individuals and associations and dealing with terrorist activities and for matters connected therewith. Therefore, the aim and object of enactment of U.A.(P) Act is also to provide for more effective prevention of certain unlawful activities. 11. To achieve the said object and purpose of effective prevention of certain unlawful activities the Parliament in its wisdom has provided that where an association is declared unlawful by a notification issued under Section 3, a person, who is and continues to be a member of such association shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 2 years, and shall also be liable to fine. 12. Clause (m) of Section 2 of the 1967 Act defines “terrorist organization”. Chapters III onwards of the 1967 Act incorporate various offences. Chapter IV has the title “punishment for terrorist act”. 12. Clause (m) of Section 2 of the 1967 Act defines “terrorist organization”. Chapters III onwards of the 1967 Act incorporate various offences. Chapter IV has the title “punishment for terrorist act”. Clause (k) of Section 2 provides that “terrorist act” has the meaning assigned to it under Section 15 and the terrorist act includes an act which constitutes an offence within the scope of, and as defined in any of the treaties specified in the Second Schedule. 13. Further section 10(a)(i) of Act, 1967 provides that where an association is declared unlawful by a notification issued under Section 3 which has become effective under sub- section (3) of that Section, a person, who is continues to be a member of such association shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, and shall also be liable to fine therefore, so long as Section 10(a)(i) stands a person who is or continues to be a member of such association shall be liable to be punished. 14. 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. 15. 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. 16. 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. 16. 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 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. 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 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….” 17. 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. 18. 18. This Court, on the basis of the abovementioned position of law and the factual aspect, as has been gathered against the appellant is proceeding to examine as to whether the accusation against the appellant is prima facie true as compared to the accusation of accused not guilty by taking into consideration the material collected in course of investigation. 19. It appears that role of the appellant has come at paragraph 17.36.8 of the supplementary charge-sheet, wherefrom it is evident that he became member of CPI (Maoist), a proscribed organization and used to provide logistic support i.e., SIM Card, mobile phone, IED making materials/explosive etc. to co-accused persons and assisted co-accused persons to commit several terrorist acts. For ready reference, paragraph 17.36.8 is quoted as under: “17.36.8: Role and offences additional established against accused Anem Hessa Purti (A-8) It is established that A-8 came in contact with A-17, through A-7, and became member of CPI (Maoist). He used to provide logistic support i.e. providing of SIM Card, Mobile phone, IED making materials/explosive substance etc, to A-17 & A-19. Previously, A - 8 had assisted A - 17 , A -18 & A-19, to commit several terrorist acts. On 13.06.2020, A - 8 , along with A-7, went to Arhanja forest and attended meeting conducted by A-19 & A-17, to carry out terrorist attack on the police personnel at Kukruhaat Bazaar. On 14.06.2019, A - 8 was assigned to keep watch on the movement of security forces at Nagasoreng near Ichagarh Police station commission of the instant crime. for On 16.06.20219, A - 8 & A - 7 went to Mududa-Banaida Forest and met with A-17 & A-19 and discussed about the instant crime and further made plan to dispose 04 bikes used in the instant crime. On 17.06.2019, A - 8 along with A-7, went to Amda Forest area and met with A-9 and further disposed 04 bikes used in the instant crime. On 17.06.2019, A - 8 along with A-7, went to Amda Forest area and met with A-9 and further disposed 04 bikes used in the instant crime. Therefore, as per averments made in pre-para, it is established that A-8 became an Over Ground Worker of CPI (Maoist), a proscribed organization, and was part of the meeting in which conspiracy was hatched, among co- accused, and assisted co-accused to assemble with deadly weapons Kukruhaat to carry out at terrorist attack on police patrolling party which resulted in the killing of 05 police personnel and subsequently, snatching/ looting of Government issued arms and ammunition, wireless set and setting the vehicle on fire. Thereby, A-8 committed offences under sections 120B r/w 121, 121A, 396 of IPC, sections 16, 18, 20, 38 and 39 of the Unlawful (Prevention) Act, 1967." Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.” 20. Accordingly, this Court, on the basis of the facts as referred hereinabove and coming to the provision of Section 43D(5) of the Act, 1967 as also the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali (supra) is of the view that it cannot be said that the allegation levelled against the appellants is prima facie untrue. 21. Furthermore, the prayer for bail of other co-accused persons have been rejected by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1539 of 2022 vide order dated 18.08.2023; Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1547 of 2022 dated 18.08.2023;Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1272 of 2022 vide order dated 17.01.2023; Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 234 of 2022 vide order dated 21.09.2022 and Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1226 of 2022 vide order dated 17.01.2023. 22. In view of the foregoing discussions, we find no illegality in the impugned order dated 16.11.2024 passed in M.C.A. No. 2823 of 2024 by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner, XVI-cum-Special Judge, NIA, Ranchi rejecting the application of the appellant, as such order impugned requires no interference by this Court 23. In the result, we find no merit in instant appeal, hence, the same is accordingly, dismissed. 24. It is made clear that any observation made herein will not prejudice the case of the appellant in course of trial and view as expressed by this Court is only limited to the instant appeal.