Anem Hassa Purty @ Anem vs The State Of Jharkhand on 3 March, 2025

Date:

Jharkhand High Court

Anem Hassa Purty @ Anem vs The State Of Jharkhand on 3 March, 2025

Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad

Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad

   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
              Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1604 of 2024
                                ----
Anem Hassa Purty @ Anem            ...  ...      Appellant
                             Versus
1.The State of Jharkhand
2.National Investigation Agency       ...   ... Opp. Parties
                              -------

CORAM :HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

——

For the Appellant     : Mr. Pran Pranay, Advocate
For the State         : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, P.P
For the NIA           : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate
                        Mr. Saurav Kumar, Advocate
                             --------
                         rd
Order No. 03 : Dated 3 March, 2025

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.

-1-

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 since

19.03.2024.

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.

-2-

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

-3-
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”. 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

-4-
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. Zahoor Ahmad Shah

Watali, reported in [(2019) 5 SCC 1] wherein at paragraph

23 it has been held by interpreting the expression “prima

-5-
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.
There is a degree of difference between the satisfaction to be

-6-
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. This Court, on the basis of the abovementioned position

of law and the factual aspect, as has been gathered against

-7-
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

-8-
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.

-9-

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.

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)

(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
Alankar/

– 10 –



Source link

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Share post:

Subscribe

spot_imgspot_img

Popular

More like this
Related