Jharkhand High Court
Bindeshwar Ganjhu @ Bindu Ganjhu vs Union Of India Through Nia on 5 March, 2025
Author: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay, Ambuj Nath
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 11 of 2024
Bindeshwar Ganjhu @ Bindu Ganjhu, S/o Bhikhan Ganjhu, R/o
Vill- Honhe, P.O.- Tandwa, P.S.- Tandwa, Dist.- Chatra.
...... Appellant
Versus
Union of India through NIA
...... Respondent
-------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH
-------
For the Appellant : Mr. Balaji Srinivasan, Adv.
For the Respondent : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Spl. P.P.-NIA
------
CAV on : 15/10/2024 Pronounced on : /03/2025
Per Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. :
1. Heard Mr. Balaji Srinivasan, learned counsel for the appellant
and Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned Spl. P.P.-NIA.
2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 03.01.2024
passed in Misc. Criminal Application No. 2958 of 2023 in
connection with RC 06/2018/NIA/DLI arising out of Special (NIA)
Case No. 03/2018 by Sri Madhuresh Kumar Verma, learned A.J.C.-
XVI-cum-Special Judge, NIA, Ranchi whereby and whereunder the
prayer for bail of the appellant has been rejected.
3. A written report was submitted by Ramdhari Singh, Sub
Inspector of Police, posted at Simaria P.S. to the effect that on
10.01.2016 a secret information was received by the
Superintendent of Police that in Amrapali Magadh Coal area in
Tandwa some local people have formed an association which is
related to the banned extremist outfit TPC. The members of such
association were extracting levy from coal traders and DO holders
by creating fear in the name of the extremists of TPC, namely Gopal
Singh Bhokta @ Brijesh Ganjhu, Mukesh Ganjhu, Kohram Ji,
Akraman Ji @ Ravindra Ganjhu, Anischay Ganjhu, Bhikan Ganjhu,
Deepu Singh @ Bhikan and Bindu Ghanju. It was also alleged that
if any businessmen hesitate to pay levy, they are threatened by
members of such organization and are also subjected to hardships.
In order to verify the truthfulness or otherwise of such information
a raiding party was constituted on the orders of Superintendent of
-2-
Police, Chatra. A raid was conducted in the house of the President
of the Association – Binod Kumar Ganjhu and from under his bed
as well as from an almirah Rs. 91,75,890/- was recovered. No
satisfactory explanation could be submitted by Binod Kumar
Ganjhu with respect to the recovery of such a huge amount of cash.
From the house of Binod Kumar Ganjhu two persons were also
apprehended who disclosed their names as Birbal Ganjhu and
Munesh Ganjhu and on search of their persons a loaded Mauser
pistol was recovered from the possession of Birbal Ganjhu while
from the possession of Munesh Ganjhu a country made pistol and
two live cartridges were recovered. Both had confessed of being
associated with TPC organization. Binod Ganjhu had disclosed that
he is the President of “Magadh Sanchalan Samittee” and the levy
collected is sent to Gopal Singh Bhogta @ Brijesh Ganjhu and
thereafter it is distributed between Mukesh Ganjhu, Kohramji,
Akramanji @ Ravindra Ganjhu, Anischyaji, Bhikan Ganjhu and
Deepu Singh @ Bhikan. He had further disclosed that Bindu
Ganjhu is a member of “Amrapali Sanchalan Samittee” who collects
levy on behalf of TPC and since he is at present in Jail the
collection of levy is being done by Pradeep Ram. On such
information a raid was conducted in the house of Pradeep Ram and
from under his bed as well as from an almirah Rs. 57,57,710/- in
cash was recovered. No satisfactory explanation could be given by
Pradeep Ram with respect to the cash recovered.
4. Based on the aforesaid allegations Tandwa P.S. Case No. 02
of 2016 was instituted for the offences under Sections 414, 384,
386, 387, 120B of the I.P.C., Section 25(1-b)(a), 26/35 of the Arms
Act and Section 17 (1)(2) of Criminal Law Amendment Act against
Binod Kumar Ganjhu, Munesh Ganjhu, Pradeep Ram, Birbal
Ganjhu, Gopal Singh Bhokta @ Brijesh Ganjhu, Mukesh Ganjhu,
Kohramji, Akramanji @ Ravindra Ganjhu, Anischya Ganjhu, Deepu
Singh @ Bhikan, Bindu Ganjhu @ Bindeshwar Ganjhu and Bhikan
Ganjhu.
On 10.03.2016 charge sheet was submitted against the other
accused persons before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Chatra. On 09.04.2017, on the prayer made by the Investigating
-3-
Officer offences under Sections 16, 17, 20 and 23 of the Unlawful
Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘UAP
Act‘ for the sake of brevity) were added. Since the offences involved
a scheduled offence, in exercise of powers conferred u/s 6(3) read
with Section 8 of the National Investigation Agency, Act 2008, the
Central Government vide order dated 13.02.2018 had directed the
National Investigation Agency to take up the investigation of the
case consequent to which Tandwa P.S. Case No. 02 of 2016 was
reregistered as NIA Case No. RC-06/2018/NIA/DLI.
The first supplementary charge sheet bearing Charge Sheet
No. 32/2018 was filed by the NIA on 21.12.2018.
5. Submission has been advanced by Mr. Balaji Srinivasan,
learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is a land loser
under the Relief and Rehabilitation Scheme of CCL and carries on a
legitimate business of transport. It has been submitted that the
companies who got mining leases were finding it difficult to extract
the minerals and run their business which resulted in their
approaching the villagers and a committee was constituted in the
name of Shanti Sah Sanchalan Samiti. The payment of money for
business purpose does not amount to terror funding and meeting
with members of the terrorist organization does not establish a web
of conspiracy hatched by the appellant. Mr. Srinivasan has further
submitted that the appellant is in custody since 18.08.2018. The
trial has till date not concluded and several of the co-accused have
been granted bail by this Court. In fact, the appellant has been
granted bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
ECIR/RNSZO/02/2016 considering the fact that the appellant is in
custody for six and a half years in the predicate offence which is
the case from which the present appeal arises.
6. Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned Special P.P. (NIA) has
submitted that the prayer for bail of the appellant was earlier
rejected in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 29 of 2021 against which the
appellant had moved the Hon’ble Supreme Court which, however,
was disposed of with a liberty to the appellant to renew his prayer
for bail if the trial is not concluded within one year. The present
application for grant of bail is not maintainable as there is no
-4-
changed circumstance to initiate a fresh consideration. It has been
submitted that the appellant, as the investigation suggests, is an
active member of the terrorist organization and which fact has
already been considered by this Court. According to Mr. Das, the
trial is on the verge of conclusion and, therefore, the present appeal
is liable to be dismissed.
7. The appellant has been arrayed as (A-5) in the supplementary
charge sheet and the role and activities of the appellant has been
demarcated in para 17.16 of the said charge sheet which reads as
follows:
“17.16 Role and activities of / offences
established against Bindu Ganjhu (A-5):
Therefore, as per the averments made
hereinabove / in the pre-paragraphs, it is
established that he is member of Shanti Sah
Sanchalan Samiti of Honhe village in
Amrapali coal mine area. He along with A-11
on the direction of A-14 used to collect levy
from Transporters and DO holders in
Amrapali coalmine area. He also colluded
with A-7 to resolve issues related to levy. He
also acquired proceeds of terrorism, i.e.,
movable properties acquired through
illegitimate sources. He was also closely
associated with A-9 and he (A-5) was paying
the levy amount to CCL, Village Committee,
TPC operatives and others also on behalf of A-
9. He, being member of terrorist gang, was
closely associated with top leaders of the
gang and used to extort levy from coal
transporters / contractors and raised funds
for the terrorist gang and acquired Proceeds
of Terrorism. Therefore, it is established that
Bindu Ganjhu (A-5), by becoming member of
terrorist gang/ unlawful association of TPC,
proscribed by Government of Jharkhand,
-5-assisted in the operations/ management of
TPC in criminal conspiracy with members of
the terrorist gang including A-4, A-9, A-11, A-
14, A-16 with intent to aid the above said
terrorist gang collected funds from illegitimate
sources through extortion from the
contractors/ coal traders/ Coal Transporters
and acquired proceeds of terrorism in the form
of movable/ immovable properties through the
terrorist fund and thereby conspired with co-
accused for terrorist act. Thereby accused
Bindu Ganjhu (A-5) committed offences under
sections 120B r/w 387, 384, 386, 414 of the
IPC, sections 17, 18, 20 and 21 of the UA(P)
Act, section 17 of the CLA Act, 1908.
8. The appellant had earlier moved for grant of bail in Cr. Appeal
(DB) No. 29 of 2021 which was dismissed vide order dated
04.08.2022. The appellant had moved the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 7609/2022 which was
disposed of on 28.11.2022 with a direction to the learned trial court
to conclude the trial within a period of one year. An extension for
conclusion of trial was sought for by the learned trial court vide
Misc. Application No. 2653/2023 and vide order dated
12.01.2024, the time stipulated had been extended by one year. We
have been informed that the trial has not yet been concluded.
9. In the case of Union of India versus K.A. Najeeb, reported
in (2021) 3 SCC 713, 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
-6-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 being used as the
sole metric for denial of bail or for wholesale
breach of constitutional right to speedy trial.”
10. In Vinod Kumar Ganjhu @ Binod Ganjhu @ Binod Kumar
Ganjhu v. State through NIA, Ranchi in Cr. Appeal (DB) No.
1019 of 2018, while granting bail, this Court had also taken into
consideration the period of custody of the appellant in the following
manner:
“16. The appellant is in custody since
30.06.2018 and is on the verge of completion
of 6 years in custody. The long incarceration
of the appellant would also be a dominant
feature while considering grant of bail apart
from the fact that the trial has not yet been
concluded which have been taken into
consideration in the case of “Union of India
Vs. K. A. Najeeb” (supra) noted above.”
11. Another of the co-accused, namely, Birbal Ganjhu has been
granted bail by this Court in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 159 of 2023
considering the period of custody undergone by the said appellant.
12. As is evident, the appellant is in custody since 18.08.2018,
i.e., more than six and half years. Such long incarceration would be
a predominant factor in granting bail to the appellant.
13. We, therefore, on the basis of what has been discussed above,
set aside the order dated 03.01.2024 passed in Misc. Criminal
Application No. 2958 of 2023 passed in connection with RC
-7-
06/2018/NIA/DLI arising out of Special (NIA) Case No. 03/2018
and direct that the appellant shall be released on bail on furnishing
bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- only with two sureties of the like amount
each to the satisfaction of learned A.J.C.-XVI-cum-Special Judge,
N.I.A., Ranchi in connection with RC 06/2018/NIA/DLI arising out
of Special (N.I.A) No. 03/2018 subject to the condition that he shall
remain physically present before the learned trial court on each
and every date till the conclusion of the trial.
14. This appeal stands allowed.
(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)
(Ambuj Nath, J.)
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
Dated the …..th Day of March, 2025
Preet/N.A.F.R.
[ad_1]
Source link