Jharkhand High Court
Pradeep Ram @ Pradeep Verma S/O Devki Ram vs Union Of India Through National … on 6 March, 2025
Author: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 827 of 2024
---
Pradeep Ram @ Pradeep Verma S/o Devki Ram, R/o Village Winglat,
PO & PS Tandwa, District Chatra, Jharkhand... ... Appellant
Versus
Union of India through National Investigating Agency, represented by
Superintendent of Police, N.I.A., having its office at N.I.A., Camp Office,
Quarter No. 305, Sector II, PO Dhurwa, PS Dhurwa, District Ranchi,
Jharkhand - 834002 ... ... Respondent
---
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI
---
For the Appellant : Mr. Balaji Srinivasan,
Mr. Niranjan Kumar & Miss Akriti Priya, Advocate
For the Respondent-NIA : Mr. A. K. Das, Special P. P.
---
C.A.V. on - 11.12.2024 Pronounced on - 06.03.2025
Per, R. Mukhopadhyay, J.
Heard Mr. Balaji Srinivasan, learned counsel appearing for
the appellant and Mr. A. K. Das, learned A.P.P. appearing for the NIA.
2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 01.05.2024
passed in Misc. Criminal Application No. 616 of 2024 in connection with
R.C. Case No. 06/2018/NIA/DLI arising out of Special (NIA) case no. 3
of 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 hesitates 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 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 the appellant – 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
2
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 Officer offences
under Sections 16, 17, 20 and 23 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention)
Act, 1967 (herein after 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. It has been submitted by Mr. Balaji Srinivasan, learned
counsel for the appellant that the appellant is a businessman having
business operations in the State of Bihar and Jharkhand as he runs two
coal transportations firms – (a) M/s. Pradeep Ram and (b) M/s. Transcon
Infra. The appellant is in custody since 25.06.2016 and the trial has not
been concluded till date. The implication of the appellant in the present
case is on account of a raid conducted in his house wherein Rs.
57,57,710/- in cash was recovered and this was construed to be extortion
money collected from the Contractors in connivance with some of the co-
accused persons, some of whom have been granted bail by this court. It
has been submitted that the maximum punishment for most of the
offences for which the appellant has been charge-sheeted has already
been completed by the appellant. Despite the specific direction by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Bindu Ganjhu @ Bindeshwar
Ganjhu Vs. Union of India“, the trial has not reached its conclusion and
in such circumstances, the appellant deserves to be released on bail.
6. Mr. A. K. Das, learned counsel for the NIA has submitted
that it is established that the appellant is the member of the T.P.C. and
huge amount of money recovered from his house is a pointer to his
3
involvement with the top leadership of the organization. The appellant
used to collect levy from the contractors, transporters and traders on
behalf of T.P.C. The appellant had indulged in attending meetings with
the T.P.C. leaders and was involved in collection of levy on behalf of
T.P.C. and the Village Committee for smooth running of Amrapali
Magadh Colliery. He further submitted that the bail application of co-
accused Munesh Ganjhu has been rejected by this court. The appellant
has been arrayed as A-4 in the 1st supplementary charge-sheet and the
role and activities of the appellant has been depicted in paragraph 17.15
in the said charge-sheet which reads as follows:
“17.15 Role and activities of/offences established
against Pradeep Verma @ Pradeep Ram (A-4):
Therefore, as per the averments made hereinabove in the pre-
paragraphs, it is established that he is member of Shanti Sah
Sanchalan Samiti of Winglat village in Amrapali coal mine
area. 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. He was
arrested on 11.01.2016 with cash worth Rs. 57,57,710.
Therefore, it is established that Pradeep Verma @ Pradeep
Ram (A-4), by becoming member of terrorist gang/ unlawful
association TPC, proscribed by Government of Jharkhand,
assisted in the operations/management of TPC in criminal
conspiracy with members of the terrorist gang including A-1,
A-2, A-3, A-5, A-14 with intent to aid the above said terrorist
gang collected funds from illegitimate sources through
extortion from the contractors/coal traders/Coal Transporters
and knowingly concealed/retained/dishonestly possessed such
extorted cash amount worth Rs. 57,57,710/- 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 Pradeep
Verma @ Pradeep Ram (A-4) committed offences under
Sections 120B r/w 387, 384, 386, 386 r/w 411, 414 of the
IPC, Sections 17, 18, 20 and 21 of the UA(P) Act, Section 17
of the CLA Act, 1908.”
7. The appellant had earlier moved before this court for grant
of bail in Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 89 of 2020 which however was
rejected vide order dated 14.09.2020 as a prima-facie case was made out
against the appellant in terms of Section 43-D(5) of the Unlawful
Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. The changed circumstances as
highlighted by the learned counsel for the appellant is that subsequent to
4
the rejection of his prayer for bail, several co-accused persons have been
granted bail apart from the fact that the appellant has been incarcerated
in judicial custody for long.
8. In the case of “Vinod Kumar Ganjhu @ Binod Ganjhu @
Binod Kumar Ganjhu” in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1019 of 2018 while
granting bail, this court has 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.
9. Another of the co-accused namely, Birbal Ganjhu has been
granted bail in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 159 of 2023 considering the period of
custody undergone by the said accused. Some of the other co-accused
persons who have been granted bail are Mahesh Agarwal in Cr. Appeal
(DB) No. 175 of 2022, Ajay Kumar in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 535 of 2022,
Subhan Mian in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 394 of 2021 and Ajit Kumar Thakur
in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 999 of 2019. In the case of “Bhikhan Ganjhu @
Deepak Kumar Vs. Union of India” in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 554 of 2024, it
has been held as follows:
11. …………. The Supplementary Charge-Sheet of
National Investigating Agency is a document steeped in
ambiguity as the hierarchical structures in collection of levy
from the contractors have been enumerated in para 17.5 of the
Supplementary Charge-Sheet which does not include a Zonal
Commander which the appellant is as per the Investigating
Agency but at the same time saddling the appellant of
extorting levy from Coal Transporters / Contractors albeit in a
generalized sense would not enhance the role of the appellant.
10. We have referred to the case of “Bhikhan Ganjhu” (supra)
primarily to emphasize on the fact that the allegations against the
appellant are cocooned in a generalised manner save and except the
recovery of the huge amount of cash from the house of the appellant
which has been construed to be the extorted amount oblivious to the fact
5
that the appellant was carrying on the business of transportation. The
other eminent feature of the case is the period of custody undergone by
the appellant which is since 25.06.2016 and in this context 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
being used as the sole metric for denial of bail or for wholesale
breach of constitutional right to speedy trial.”
11. In view of the circumstances noted above, specifically
with respect to the period of custody undergone by the appellant
we while setting aside the order 01.05.2024 passed in Misc.
Criminal Application No. 616 of 2024 by Sri Madhuresh Kumar
Verma, learned A.J.C. 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 A.J.C. XVI cum
Special Judge, NIA, Ranchi in connection with in connection with
R.C. Case No. 06/2018/NIA/DLI arising out of Special (NIA) case
no. 3 of 2018 corresponding to Tandwa P.S. Case No. 02 of 2016,
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.
12. We make it clear that the learned trial court shall not
be influenced while conducting the trial of any of the observations
made by us in this order as such observations/findings are
restricted only for the purposes of grant of bail to the appellant.
6
13. This appeal is allowed.
(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)
(Arun Kumar Rai, J.)
R. Shekhar Cp 3
7