Jharkhand High Court
Prafful Malakar Alias Prafful Kumar ... vs The State Of Jharkhand Through National ... on 6 April, 2015
Author: R. R. Prasad
Bench: R. R. Prasad, Ravi Nath Verma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 68 of 2015
Prafful Malakar
@ Prafful Kumar Malakar @ Praful Bhagat .... Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand through NIA, Ranchi.... Respondent
Coram : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. R. PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI NATH VERMA
For the appellant (s): M/s Manoj Tondon & Kumari Rashmi
For the respondent (NIA) : Rohit Ranjan Prasad
06.04.2015This appeal is directed against order dated 12.12.2014 passed by the learned Special Judge (NIA), Ranchi, in Special (NIA) Case No. 01 of 2012 (arising out of Chauparan PS Case No. 187 of 2012) whereby and whereunder prayer made by the appellant for grant of bail was rejected.
Mr. Tondon, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that it is the case of the prosecution that when this appellant was arrested from the Salodar forest on 29.8.2012, he was found in possession of a rifle USA Make with 14 cartridges and also a bullet proof jacket which were supposed to be sold to one Anil Kumar Yadav, a member of a banned organization, who incidentally reached there and was arrested. From his possession nine lacs rupees were recovered. On such accusation, a case was registered as Chauparan PS case No. 187 of 2012 under sections 386, 387, 121, 121A, 414, 120B of the Indian Penal Code, as well as under sections 25(1B)a,26 and 35 of the Arms Act and also under sections 10 and 13 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. Thereupon, the matter was taken up for investigation.
After completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted on 26.11.2012 against the appellant and others for the said offences as mentioned above.
However, on 17.12.2012, NIA took up the investigation of the case. While the matter was under
investigation, the appellant moved to this Court for grant of bail which was granted. However, at the instance of the NIA, an application was filed for cancellation of bail whereafter the order granting bail was recalled. On 31.7.2014, a supplementary charge sheet was filed for the offences as aforesaid as also for the offences under sections 17, 18 and 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention ) Act, 1967. On submission of the charge sheet when bail application was moved before the designated court for grant of bail, it was rejected by order dated 12.12.2014. Being aggrieved with that order, this appeal in terms of provision 21 of the NIA Act has been preferred.
Mr. Tondon, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that whatever case has been made out by the district police or the NIA against the appellant of being arrested on 29.8.2012 from Salodar forest, that is absolutely false . As a matter of fact, the appellant had been arrested from his house on 24.8.2012 by the local police which was published on the very next day in the newspapers. When the appellant was not produced in the court, "bhabhi" of this appellant submitted an application before the learned ACJM on 28.8.2012. When the prosecution was called upon to make response to the statement made in the application, it was responded that the appellant was never arrested on 24.8.2012. Rather, he had been arrested on 29.8.2012.
Further it was submitted that from bare perusal of the allegations made in the FIR, one would find that no offence is made out either under section 386, 387, 121 or 121A of the Indian Penal Code. At the same time, learned counsel by drawing our attention to section 15 of of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act defining 'Terrorist Act', submitted that even the offence under 17 and 18 and 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention ) Act is not made out as the appellant has simply been alleged to have sold or intended to have sold the foreign make rifle to Anil Kumar Yadav, but it is never there that the appellant or the other accused did commit any act which in view of section 15 of the Act can be said to be a 'terrorist act' by using that rifle and thereby none of the offences under section 17,18 or 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967 get attracted.
As against this, Mr. Rohit Ranjan Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the NIA submits that it has come during investigation made by the NIA that this appellant is a hard-core member of a banned organisation and as such the intention of the appellant was to sell a foreign make rifle to another person (Anil Kumar Yadav) a member of the banned organisation, to commit an act as stipulated under clause (a) to ( c ) of section 15 of the Act and thereby the offence under section 17,18 and 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention ) Act certainly gets attracted.
As against this, Mr. Tondon, learned counsel submits that admittedly, nothing has come during investigation that either the appellant or Anil Yadav had committed any of the offence which finds place in sub section (a ) to ( c ) of Section 15 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention ) Act 1967 and thereby the question of committing offence either under section 17,18 or 20 of the said Act never does arise. Further, it was submitted that the appellant has been in custody since last 2½ years. Moreover, the other offences as have been alleged, if gets attracted, the punishment would be five years and in that event, the appellant is certainly entitled to be released on bail.
In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, as stated above, let the appellant Prafful Malakar @ Prafful Kumar Malakar @ Praful Bhagat be admitted to bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (rupees ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge, (NIA) Ranchi, in connection with Special (NIA) Case No. 01 of 2012 (arising out of Chauparan PS Case No. 187 of 2012, subject to the condition that Kalawati Devi, sister of the appellant, must be one of the bailors.
The appeal stands disposed of.
( R. R. Prasad, J. )
Ambastha/- ( R. N. Verma, J. )