Manipur High Court
National Investigation Agency vs Deepak Sharma @ Khingmaung on 8 August, 2025
Author: Ahanthem Bimol Singh
Bench: Ahanthem Bimol Singh
1
Digitally signed by
JOHN JOHN TELEN KOM
TELEN KOM Date: 2025.08.22
11:17:10 +05'30'
Sl.No.2(suppl.)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
Cril.A. No.15 of 2025
National Investigation Agency.
Appellant
Vs.
Deepak Sharma @ Khingmaung.
Respondent
BEFORE
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. KEMPAIAH SOMASHEKAR
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AHANTHEM BIMOL SINGH
(ORDER)
(K. Somashekar, CJ)
08.08.2025.
[1] This appeal has been preferred by the National Investigation
Agency(NIA) under section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act,
2008 challenging the order rendered by the Special Judge(NIA), Manipur in
Cril.Misc.(Bail) Case No.34 of 2024 dated 16.04.2024 for the offence
punishable under Section 120B,384 of IPC, Sections 17,18,38,39 & 40 of
Unlawful Activities(Prevention)Act, 1967.
[2] The present appeal proceeding has been slated for admission
and even in the admission stage itself, it is taken up for disposal with the
consent of the learned counsel appearing for the NIA, Mr. BR.Sharma and
2
so also Mr. Ajay Kumar Sharma, learned counsel, who is present and be
directing him to accept the process on behalf of the respondent/accused.
[3] Brief facts of this appeal are as under:
The Central Government has received information that the
active cadre of terrorist organizations including but not limited to kangleipak
Communist Party(KCP), United National Liberation Front (UNLF) and
People’s Revolutionary Party of Kangleipak (PREPAK) and there is an
allegation made that they are raising funds in the region of Manipur State
in furtherance of their terror activities and because of that information, a
criminal law was initiated by recording an FIR which reflected in the
materials available on record but the materials which reveals as the active
cadres of these proscribed terrorist organizations have arranged SIM cards
on fake identities which are used to make extortion calls to government
employees, employees of private institutions, businessmen, contractors
and professional for demanding funds and based upon these information,
the aforesaid crime was came to be registered by NIA. Subsequent to the
registration of the crime by recording the FIR and it is in accordance with
Code of Criminal Procedure and thereafter the Investigating Officer has
taken up the case for investigation and completion of the investigation by
recording the statements of the witnesses and inclusive of Mahaja and so
also the documents which have been secured by the concerned authority
and filing of a charge-sheet against the respondent/accused before the
3
court having the jurisdiction to deal the matter, the same has been reflected
in the materials available on record.
[4] Subsequent to the filing of charge sheet against the accused
and even prior to that also the accused/respondent had moved a bail
application under t relevant provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure
and whereby the Special Judge had heard the argument advanced by the
learned PP and so also the argument advanced by the learned counsel on
behalf of the accused and thereafter granted bail by imposing certain
conditions and the same has been reflected in the impugned order passed
in Cril. Misc(Bail) Case No.34 of 2024 ref: RC-08/2022/NIA-DLI.
[5] Whereas the special counsel, Mr. BR Sharma for the NIA in
this matter has taken us through the materials available on record and so
also the offences which are leveled against the respondent/accused
inclusive of the offence under UA(P) Act of 1967 but for the material
available on record only the Investigating Officer has leveled against the
accused and when once charge sheet has been leveled against the
accused, it reveals as that there are prima facie material against the
accused for commission of offence and therefore, the accused do not
deserve for seeking bail even though imposition of certain conditions but
the accused in case releasing on bail and even though he has already been
granted bail, certainly he would come in a way of prosecution case, on this
premises only, Mr BR Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant in this
matter seeking for intervention and more so allowing this appeal and
4
consequently, setting aside the impugned order which has been rendered
by the Special Judge in the aforesaid case.
[6] On the contrary, the learned counsel for the
respondent/accused in this matter has taken us through the material
available on record and so also the offences which were leveled against the
accused but the offence specifically reveals as section 120B of IPC 1860
but this offence reveals as criminal conspiracy but the remaining offences
were 17 ,39 & 40 of Unlawful Activities(Prevention)Act, 1967 and inclusive
of section 14(c) and also section 14(A)(b) of the Foreigner’s Act and even
though the charge sheet has been led against the accused the person and
it is in the domain of the prosecution to prove the guilt against the accused
beyond unreasonable doubt but as of this stage, the accused is yet to face
the trial and the Special Judge has already framed charge and thereafter,
the case was sent down for recording of evidence on the part of the
prosecution and therefore, in this appeal does not required for intervention
merely because there shall be some miscarriage of justice and more so,
the accused in case to be released on bail certainly he would come in a
way of prosecution case but this is only for misconception of the National
Investigation Agency and on these premises only seeking for dismissal of
this appeal even on merits.
[7] Keeping in view the submissions made by the learned counsel
for the NIA, Mr. BR Sharma and so also, learned counsel for the
respondent/accused, Mr. Ajay Kumar Sharma who has stoutly argued and
5
countered the argument advanced by Mr. BR. Sharma, learned counsel for
NIA. However, the learned Special Judge(NIA) Manipur has addressed the
issues by dwelling into the materials available on record but when once
charge sheet has been led by the Investigating Officer and also keeping in
view the provision of sections 161 & 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
and inclusive section of 167 of Cr.P.C and therefore, in this matter does not
arise for dwelling in detail for consideration of the grounds which have been
urged in this appeal and the appeal is nothing but continuity of the
proceeding. However, in this appeal only for challenging the order rendered
by the Special Judge(NIA) by granting bail to the respondent/accused and
imposition of certain conditions but bail is a rule and jail is an exception and
the same has been addressed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and
time and again, it has to be addressed. Therefore, in this appeal it does not
arise for call for intervention of the order rendered by the court below for
entertaining the bail petition as filed under the relevant provision of the
Code of Criminal Procedure even to the extent of the provision under the
Unlawful Activities(Prevention)Act, 1967. However in this matter, it is
deemed appropriate to state and opine that this appeal does not have any
substances and more so suffered from infirmities.
[8] In view of the above reasons and findings, we are inclined to
pass the following orders:
6
(a) The present appeal preferred by the National Investigation
Agency under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation
Agency Act, 2008 is hereby dismissed.
(b) Consequently, the order dated 16.04.2024 rendered by the
Special Judge(NIA) Manipur in the proceeding of Cril.
Misc(Bail) Case No.34 of 2024 is hereby confirmed.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE John Kom