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 –