Jharkhand High Court
Pawan Kumar Yadav S/O Govind Yadav vs Union Of India Through National … on 5 March, 2025
Author: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay, Rajesh Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 329 of 2022
---
Pawan Kumar Yadav s/o Govind Yadav, R/o Village Herenhopa
Pobalubhang, PO & PS Balumath, District Latehar (Jharkhand)
... ... Appellant
Versus
Union of India through National Investigation Agency having its office at
N.I.A. Camp Office, Quarter No. 305, Sector-II, PO & PS Dhurwa, District
Ranchi, Jharkhand ... ... Respondent
---
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
---
For the Appellant : M/s. Indrajit Sinha &
Akhouri Awinash, Advocate
For the Respondent-NIA : Mr. A. K. Das, Special P. P.
---
C.A.V. on - 26.11.2024 Pronounced on - 05.03.2025
Per, R. Mukhopadhyay, J.
Heard Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant and Mr. A. K. Das, learned Special P. P. (NIA) appearing for
the State.
2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 16.02.2022
passed in Misc. Criminal Application No. 126 of 2022 in connection with
Special (NIA) Case No. 1 of 2019 corresponding to R. C. No.
13/2019/NIA/DLI arising out of Balumath P. S. Case No. 225 of 2018 by
Sri Madhuresh Kumar Verma, learned AJC XVI cum Special Judge, NIA,
Ranchi whereby and whereunder the prayer for bail of the appellant has
been rejected.
3. The First information Report was instituted on the basis of
self-statement of Sanoj Kumar Choudhary, the officer incharge of
Balumath P.S. wherein it has been stated that on 3.12.2018, an
information was received that operatives of extremist group-PLFI have
assembled in a jungle and were planning to commit an offence. After
making a station diary entry and after informing the superior police
officials, a raid was conducted in the jungle and on chase four persons
including the appellant were apprehended. On a search conducted, a
rifle with magazine and several cartridges were found from the
possession of Gulab Yadav, a rifle and magazine with several cartridges
were recovered from the possession of Ravi Yadav, from the possession
of Pawan Kumar Yadav, fifteen pieces of 5.56 MM cartridges and mobile
phones were recovered while from the possession of the Rakesh Kumar
Paswan, fourteen pieces of 5.56 MM live cartridges and mobile phones
were recovered.
4. Bases on the aforesaid allegations, Balumath P.S. Case No.
225 of 2018 was instituted against the appellant and others for the
offences punishable under Sections 25(1-A)/26(2)/35 of the Arms Act,
Section 17 (i) (ii) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act and Section 10/13
of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.
5. The Central Government in exercise of powers conferred
under Sub Section (5) of Section 6 read with section 8 of the National
Investigation Agency Act, 2008 vide MHA, New Delhi, CTCR Division
Order No. 11011/30/2019/IS-IV dated 24.06.2019 directed the NIA to
take up investigation of the case and accordingly Balumath P.S. Case No.
225 of 2018 was re-registered as NIA Case No. RC/13/2019/NIA/DLI
under section 25(1-A)/26(2)/35 of the Arms Act, Section 17 (i) (ii) of the
Criminal Law Amendment Act and Section 10/13 of the Unlawful
Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.
6. A supplementary chargesheet was submitted by the NIA
against seven accused persons including the present appellant who has
been arrayed as A-4 and the added sections are sections 120 B read with
Sections 384, 385, 386,387 IPC, Sections 17, 18 B, 20 and 23 of the UAP
Act, Section 25(1-A), 26 and 29 of the Arms Act and Section 17 of CLA
Act.
7. It has been submitted by Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel
for the appellant that there is no cogent evidence collected by the
investigating agency that the appellant was involved in collection of
funds from illegitimate sources through extortion from Contractors
engaged in developmental activities. It has been submitted that not a
2
single person has made any complaint against the appellant of paying
extortion money to the appellant. The allegations of carrying foreign
rifles to terrorise the Contractors has been falsified on account of the fact
that no such recovery has been made from the appellant and the only
incriminating materials recovered were 15 numbers of live rounds of 5.56
mm bullets and some pamphlets of PLFI. The appellant is in custody
since 03.12.2018 and the trial has till date not been concluded.
8. Mr. A. K. Das, learned counsel for the NIA has submitted
that in the disclosure memos, it has come to light that the appellant was
an active member of the PLFI and worked under the Sub-Zonal
Commander and Area Commander of the PLFI. The C.D.R. analysis of
the mobile phone of the appellant and other accused persons disclosed
that all were well connected with each other during the relevant period,
which furthermore signifies the concerted act of all the accused persons
that they all are engaged in collecting levy from businessmen. Mr. Das
submits that P.W. 55, P.W. 56 and P.W. 57 have stated about the
appellant and his associates demanding levy from Contractors over
phone and on non-payment of such demands, their machines/JCBs were
burnt. As per Mr. Das, the prayer for bail of the appellant has already
been rejected by a coordinate Bench of this court and no fresh ground has
been enumerated for reconsideration of the prayer for bail.
9. The modus-operandi of the terrorist organization PLFI has
been revealed at paragraph 17.14 of the supplementary charge-sheet
which reads as follows:
“17.4 ….. In August 2018, Gulab Kumar Yadav ( A-1)
Ravi Yadav @ Amit Ji @ Ravi Kumar Yadav @ Rabi Yadav (
A-2), Rakesh Kumar Paswan @ Aryan Ji ( A-3) and Pawan
Kumar Yadav ( A-4) joined PLFI through the then Sub Zonal
Commander of Latehar and Chatra, Santosh Yadav @ Tiger (
A-5) for extortion. It is pertinent to mention here that Gulab
Kumar Yadav ( A-1), Ravi Yadav @ Amit Ji @ Ravi Kumar
Yadav @ Rabi Yadav ( A-2), had also been the members of
CPI ( Maoist) from 2014 to 2016 and worked under the
leadership of Pramjeet Mochi @ Sonu Mochi @ Sonu(A-7).
But in 2016, they left CPI (Maoist) as they were not able to
earn enough money. In 2016 itself, Pramjeet Mochi @ Sonu
Mochi @ Sonu(A-7) also left CPI (Maoist) with 6-8 foreign
made weapons of CPI(Maoist) and constituted his own
nexalite organization i.e. “Maowadi-2”. In August, 2018,3
Gulab Kumar Yadav ( A-1) received two foreign made (HK33
rifle and COLT AR15 rifle) weapons and ammunition from
Pramjeet Mochi @ Sonu Mochi @ Sonu(A-7) through Suresh
Yadav @ Sirisih Yadav ( A-6). These weapons were used by
Gulab Kumar Yadav (A-1), Ravi Yadav @ Amit Ji @Ravi
Kumar Yadav @ Rabi Yadav(A-2), Rakesh Kumar Paswan @
Aryan Ji (A-3) and Pawan Kumar Yadav ( A-4) on joining
PLFI in Balumath Area. On joining PLFI, accused A-1, A-2,
A-3 and A-4, on the directions of A-5, carried out various
militant activities to spread fear in the mind of general public
and contractors for extortion of levy. On 8th August, 2018,
A-2 along with A-5 and A-1 fired at Jharkhand Police at
Lawalong Main Chowk to spread panic among public and
police. In September, 2018, A-2 on the directions of A-5,
asked Muzamil Mia @ Mujahid Mia, resident of village
Murpa Pinderkom, Thana Balumath DistrictLatehar, for
paying the levy of Rs.50,000 but due to refusal of payment of
levy by Muzamil Mia, A-2 and his team including A-1, A-3
and A burnt 02 of his payloaders. Later on, in October-
November 2018, A-2 and his team asked for paying levy of
Rs.1 Lakh, by callilng one Santosh Yadav contractor, who had
undertaken the construction work of the bridge between
Lebrahi and Indua, village Lebrahi, Police Station Balumath,
District-Latehar. As the contractor refused to pay levy, A-5
directed A-2, on 22 November 2018 to attack his construction
site. Subsequent to this A-1, A-2, A-3 and A-4 attacked the
construction site”.
10. The role and activities of the appellant who has been arrayed
as A-4 has been depicted in paragraph 17.13 of the supplementary
charge-sheet which reads as follows:
“17.13 Role and activities of/offences established
against Pawan Kumar Yadav S/o Govind Yadav (A-4):
Therefore, as per the averments made hereinabove/in
the pre-paragraphs, it is established that A-4 being member of
the PLFI and worked under the command/directions of
accused Santosh Yadav @ Tiger (A-5), Sub Zonal
Commander of Latehar & Chatra and Ravi Yadav @ Amit Ji
@ Ravi Kumar Yadav (A-2), Area Commander of Balumath,
Latehar of terrorist gang/unknown association, PLFI. He
was an active member of the team of accused Ravi Yadav @
Amit Ji @ Ravi Kumar Yadav @ Rabi Yadav (A-2). He
along, with accused Rakesh Kumar Paswan @ Aryan Ji (A-3),
was recruited in PLFI by accused Ravi Yadav @ Amit JI @
Ravi Kumar Yadav (A-2) and Gulab Kumar Yadav (A-1).
He used to carry out militant operations along with his
associates i.e. accused Ravi Yadav @ Amit Ji @ Ravi Kumar
Yadav (A-2), Gulab Kumar Yadav (A-1) and Rakesh Kumar
Paswan @ Aryan Ji (A-3). He had facilitated Santosh Yadav
@ Tiger (A-5), Sub-Commander of Latehar & Chatra districts4
of PLFI for collection of levy amount along with Ravi Yadav
@ Amit Ji @ Ravi Kumar Yadav (A-2). He used to carry
foreign rifle to spread terror in the mind of contractors for
carrying unlawful and militant activities of PLFI in
Balumath area. He along with other accused Ravi Yadav @
Amit Ji @ Ravi Kumar Yadav (A-2). Gulab Kumar Yadav
(A-1) & Rakesh Kumar Paswan @ Aryan Ji (A-3) carried out
various attacks at the sites of contractors and local
businessmen for spreading fear and extort money.
Therefore, it is established that Pawan Kumar Yadav
(A-4) by becoming member of PLFI, a terrorist
gang/unlawful association proscribed by the Government of
Jharkhand, assisted in strengthening of PLFI and indulged in
criminal conspiracy along with other members namely, A-1,
A-2, A-3 & A-5 with an intent to aid the above said terrorist
gang wherein he tried to collect fund from illegitimate sources
through extortion from the contractors engaged in
development projects. Thereby, accused Pawan Kumar
Yadav (A-4) committed offences under sections (i) 120B r/w
384, 385, 386 & 387 of the IPC, sections 17, 18B & 20 of the
UA(P) Act, 1967, Section 25 (1A), 26 & 29 of the Act, 1959
and sections 17 of CLA Act, 1908 (ii) Sections 18, 20 & 23 of
the Act, 1967, in the present supplementary charge-sheet, the
additional offences established against the accused will be
added.”
11. On consideration of the entire facts of the case, a coordinate
Bench of this court had rejected the prayer for bail of the appellant in
Crimianl Appeal (D.B.) No. 184 of 2020 vide order dated 09.09.2020. It is
an admitted position that the trial has till date not been concluded and
the appellant is languishing in jail custody since 03.12.2018 i.e., more
than 6 years. At this juncture, we may refer to the case of “Union of
India versus K.A. Najeeb“, reported in (2021) 3 SCC 713, wherein it has
been held as follows:
“17. It is thus clear to us that the presence of statutory
restrictions like Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA per se does not
oust the ability of the constitutional courts to grant bail on
grounds of violation of Part III of the Constitution. Indeed,
both the restrictions under a statute as well as the powers
exercisable under constitutional jurisdiction can be well
harmonised. Whereas at commencement of proceedings, the
courts are expected to appreciate the legislative policy against
grant of bail but the rigours of such provisions will melt down
where there is no likelihood of trial being completed within a
reasonable time and the period of incarceration already
undergone has exceeded a substantial part of the prescribed
sentence. Such an approach would safeguard against the
possibility of provisions like Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA
5
being used as the sole metric for denial of bail or for wholesale
breach of constitutional right to speedy trial.”
12. As we have noted above, the appellant has been incarcerated
in custody for more than 6 years. On consideration of the same, we
while setting aside the order dated 16.02.2022 passed in Misc. Criminal
Application No. 126 of 2022 by Sri Madhuresh Kumar Verma, learned
AJC XVI cum Special Judge, NIA, Ranchi direct that the appellant above
named be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten
Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction
of the learned AJC XVI cum Special Judge, NIA, Ranchi in connection
with Special (NIA) Case No. 1 of 2019 corresponding to R. C. No.
13/2019/NIA/DLI arising out of Balumath P. S. Case No. 225 of 2018,
subject to the condition that the appellant shall remain physically present
before the learned trial court on each and every date till the conclusion of
the trial.
13. This appeal is allowed.
14. Pending I.A., if any stands closed.
(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)
(Rajesh Kumar, J.)
R. Shekhar Cp 3
6
[ad_1]
Source link