Delhi District Court
State vs . Yogendra Singh Bhokta @ Soren @ Vinay @ ... on 29 November, 2014
IN THE COURT OF SH. REETESH SINGH, ASJ-02/FTC
NEW DELHI DISTRICT PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, DELHI
Case ID No. 02403R0342962010
Session Case No. 122/13
State vs. Yogendra Singh Bhokta @ Soren @ Vinay @ Shiv Kumar
S/o Sh. Hiraman Singh Bhokta
R/o Tola-Rugud, Village Bandaru
Post-Lowalong, PS Simaria,
Distt. Chatra, Jharkhand.
FIR No. 22/09
PS: Special Cell
U/s: 18 & 20 of UAPA
Date of institution of the case : 13.08.2009
Date on which judgment reserved : 29.11.2014
Date of announcement of judgment : 29.11.2014
JUDGMENT
1. The accused Yogendra Singh Bhokta @ Soren @ Vinay @ Shiv Kumar is facing trial in this Court for offences under Sections 18 & 20 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as 'UAPA').
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 20.02.2009 a letter was received in the office of the Joint Commissioner of Police from one Sh. Jatin Narwal, ASP cum SDPO, Chattra, Jharkhand stating that the accused Yogendra Singh Bhokta was a Zonal Committee Member of a banned outfit CPI (Maoist), Madhya Zone. It was stated that information had been received that the accused had received a bullet injury in one of his knees in which he had developed infection and was currently receiving treatment in Delhi and using mobile no. 9313509551 to get in touch with State vs. Yogendra Singh Bhokta FIR no. 22/09 1/15 his fellow Naxalities in Chatrra, Jharkhand. It was further stated that the accused was in Delhi with his accomplices Sheetal Kumar Singh and Satish Pappu @ Vinod. It was further stated that an attachment order dated 03.12.2008 had been against the accused by the Court of Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chattra in case no. 38/03, PS Samaria.
3. The said letter was marked by ACP Special Cell to SI Umesh Barthwal for investigation. The mobile number furnished by the ASP cum SDPO, Chattra, Jharkhand in respect of the accused, upon investigation was found to be in the name of Manoj Kumar at D-41, Pul Prahladpur, Badarpur, New Delhi. The location of the said mobile was mostly in the area of Meethapur Extension, Molarband, Delhi. Discreet enquiry, revealed that no person by the name of Yogendra Singh Bhokta (present accused), Satish and Sheetal were residing at the given address. However, inquiry revealed that Manoj Kumar used to live as a tenant in the said address which he left long ago. The said mobile number was kept on interception after obtaining necessary sanction from the competent authority and it was found that the same was being used by three persons Satish, Sheetal and Vinay for communicating with their associates. It was found that the three accused were members of naxal groups and police was looking for them. Vinay was recuperating from his injury and was organizing activities of his group.
4. Further investigation was carried out and on 03.05.2009, a police team comprising of SI Renu Yadav, HC Rakesh Kothiyal, HC Sukhbir Singh, HC Randeep and HC Pankaj were sent to Meethapur Extension. The informer gave specific information at about 6:30pm to SI Umesh Bharthwal that he had located a person of the description of the accused Yogendra Singh Bhokta residing in the area of Gagan Vihar near State vs. Yogendra Singh Bhokta FIR no. 22/09 2/15 Molarband, Delhi. Another police team was constituted which was led by Insp. Lalit Mohan comprising of Insp. Hridaya Bhushan, SI Chandrika Prasad, ASI Ranjeet, HC Devi Dayal, Ct Jitender, Ct. Ravi Dut and SI Umesh Barthwal and reached Meethapur Extension at about 8pm. Information which was received was further verified and informer led the police team to house no. A-100/4, Gagan Vihar, Near Molarband School. Passersby and inmates of said house were asked to join the investigation but they refused. At around 8:30pm, the police team surrounded the said house and SI Umesh Bharthwal alongwith other members of the police team entered the ground floor and found one person lying on the bed in the bedroom. He revealed his name as Yogendra Singh Bhokta (present accused). Other persons who were found in the house revealed their names as Satish @ Vinod @ Pappu and Sheetal Kumar Singh. Upon interrogation, accused Yogendra Singh Bhokta revealed that he was the Zonal Commander of CPI (Maoist) and that other two persons Satish and Sheetal were his associates and members of CPI (Maoist). Satish and Sheetal upon investigation also corroborated what the accused Yogendra Singh Bhokta revealed.
5. Rukka in respect of apprehension and detention of the accused persons was prepared by the SI Umesh Bharthwal and on the basis of the same FIR No. 22/09 under Sections 18 & 20 of UAPA was registered in the PS Special Cell. Upon completion of investigation, the police report was filed in the Court of Ld. CMM against the accused Yogendra Singh Bhokta as well as the other two accused Sheetal Kumar and Satish under Sections 18 & 20 of UAPA.
6. During pendency of the matter before the Court of Ld. CMM, present accused Yogendra Singh Bhokta upon issuance of production State vs. Yogendra Singh Bhokta FIR no. 22/09 3/15 warrants from the concerned Court was sent to Jharkhand in respect of cases pending against him. Since he could not be produced subsequently, the Court of Ld. CMM vide order dated 30.01.2010 separated his case and committed the charge-sheet under Section 173 Cr.P.C. before this Court qua accused persons Sheetal and Satish.
7. Vide order dated 11.01.2011, the Ld. Predecessor of this Court framed charges against accused Sheetal and Satish under Sections 18 & 20 of UAPA to which they pleaded guilty and claimed trial. Twenty four witnesses were examined in the trial against these two accused persons. They were however acquitted vide judgment dated 11.02.2013 passed by the Court of Sh. Pawan Kumar Jain, Ld. ASJ-01 (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. No appeal was filed against acquittal of these two accused persons and said judgment has attained finality.
8. Subsequently, the present accused Yogendra Singh Bhokta was produced from Jharkhand and he was sent for trial for offences under Sections 18 and 20 of the UAPA. Charges against the present accused Yogendra Singh Bhota was framed on 16.11.2012 under Sections 18 and 20 of the UAPA to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
9. Till date four prosecution witnesses have been examined in this case. Subsequently, counsel for the accused brought to the notice of this Court that the other two accused persons Sheetal and Satish had been acquitted vide judgment dated 11.02.2013 on two grounds, firstly that the sanction order for their prosecution under Section 45 of the UAPA (which was a joint and single sanction order in respect of all the three accused i.e. present accused Yogendra Singh Bhokta, Sheetal and Satish) was found to be illegal and that secondly, the Ld. Court had disbelieved State vs. Yogendra Singh Bhokta FIR no. 22/09 4/15 the case of the prosecution even on merits.
10. Counsel for the accused submitted that the sanction order under Section 45 of the UAPA qua present accused Yogendra Singh Bhokta was the very same sanction order pertaining to other two accused Sheetal and Satish which has been found to be illegal. He further submitted that evidence against the present accused Yogendra Singh Bhokta was inseparable and indivisible from the evidence already led against two other accused Sheetal and Satish who have been acquitted. He submitted that no fruitful purpose would be served by permitting trial of Yogendra Singh Bhokta to proceed any further.
11. This Court had called upon the IO of this case to state with certainty whether any appeal has been filed against the acquittal order dated 11.02.2013 before the Hon'ble High Court. SI Umesh Bharthwal had given a written report to this Court on 05.11.2014 that no appeal had been preferred against the judgment dated 11.02.2013. It is therefore clear that said judgment has attained finality.
12. Submissions on behalf of the accused Yogendra Singh Bhokta as well as Ld. Addl. PP were heard.
13. Ex. PW13/A (exhibited in the trial against Sheetal and Satish) is the sanction order dated 30.07.2009 under Section 45 (2) of the UAPA issued by the Lt. Governor of Delhi. The same is a joint sanction order pertaining to present accused as well as accused Satish and Sheetal. Ex.PW25/A is the subsequent sanction order dated 11.01.2013 issued by the Lt. Governor of Delhi jointly in respect of the three accused persons namely Yogendra Singh Bhokta, Satish and Sheetal for the same alleged State vs. Yogendra Singh Bhokta FIR no. 22/09 5/15 offence against them. Before the Court of Sh. Pawan Kumar Jain, Ld. ASJ- 01 (Central), Tis Hazari, Delhi, it had been submitted by the State that there was no defect in the first sanction order dt.30.7.2009 and even there was any such defect, the same stood cured by the subsequent sanction order dt.11.1.2013.
14. On the point of validity of the first sanction order, in the judgment dated 11.02.2013 arising out of the trial against accused Sheetal and Satish, Ld. Predecessor of this Court had observed as under:-
"17. In the instant case, learned counsel appearing for accused persons contended that competent authority had not followed the procedure as mentioned under sub-section (2) at the time of according sanction, thus sanction was defective, which vitiates the trial. Thus, conundrum question arises as to whether the competent authority i.e. Lt. Governor had followed the procedure at the time of according the first sanction or not?
18. Indisputably, initially the sanction was accorded by the Lt. Governor of NCT of Delhi and the same was communicated by PW13 on July 30, 2009 and the sanction order is exhibited as Ex. PW13/A. PW13 Sh. Ashish Kumar, the then Deputy Secretary (Home), Government of NCT, Delhi appeared in the witness box but he did not depose that any such committee was appointed or that the recommendation of any such committee was placed before the Lt. Governor of Delhi. Perusal of the sanction order Ex. PW13/A establishes that the sanction order was granted only on the basis of draft charge-sheet, allegations made in FIR and other material and evidence placed on record. There is no reference of any authority appointed by the Central Government. Similarly, there is no reference that the said authority had independently reviewed the evidences collected by the investigating agency. Similarly, there is no reference that such authority had made any recommendation to the Central Government or the State Government to grant sanction. In other words, there is no scintilla of evidence to show that the evidences collected by the investigating officer were independently reviewed by any authority appointed by State vs. Yogendra Singh Bhokta FIR no. 22/09 6/15 the Central Government or State Government or that after review of such evidences, such authority had ever made any recommendation to the Central Government or the State Government as the case may be. It is pertinent to mention here that this Court may not have jurisdiction to examine whether the recommendation of competent authority was sufficient to accord sanction or not. But it is the bounden duty of this Court to examine as to whether any authority was appointed by the Government in terms of Section 45 (2) of UAPA and; to analyze as to whether such authority had reviewed the evidences collected by the investigating officer during investigation and; to examine whether such authority had made any recommendation to the Government to accord sanction against the accused and; also that the recommendation was made within the prescribed time and; that sanction was granted within prescribed time or not. But there is no infinitesimal evidence in this regard.
19. Needless to say, one of the main objects of imposing condition of independent review by an authority appointed by the Central Government or the State Government as the case may be, is to prevent the misuse of the stringent provisions of UAPA by the law enforcing agencies. Further, when legislature in its wisdom has prescribed a specific procedure to accord sanction, it is the pious duty of sanctioning authority to follow that procedure. But unfortunately, there is no iota of material on record to show prima-facie that the recommendation of any authority who independently reviewed the evidences collected by the investigating authority was ever brought in the notice of Lt. Governor at the time of obtaining sanction under sub-section (1) of Section 45 of the UAPA. In other words, the sanctioning authority i.e. Lt. Governor of NCT of Delhi in the present case was deprived of the relevant material i.e. recommendation of competent authority, that was necessary to consider as to whether sanction should or should not be granted.
20. In view of the above discussion, I am of the considered opinion that there was inherent defect in the sanction order dated July 30, 2009 as the same was not in consonance with the mandatory provisions of Section 45 (2) of UAPA, thus sanction was not valid."
15. As apparent, it was clearly held qua accused Sheetal and State vs. Yogendra Singh Bhokta FIR no. 22/09 7/15 Satish that there was an inherent defect in the sanction order dated 30.07.2009 as it was not in compliance with the provisions of Section 45 (2) of the UAPA. In respect of the second sanction order dated 11.01.2013 the said Ld. Court had held as under:-
"26. In case Rangku Dutta v. State of Assam, 2011 (3) JCC 1650 impugned conviction and sentence was challenged on the ground that the FIR was registered in violation of mandatory provisions of Section 20(A)(1) of TADA, which reads as under:
20-A Cognizance of offence - (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code, no information about the commission of an offence under this Act shall be recorded by the police without the prior approval of the District Superintendent of Police.
Counsel appearing for the State took the plea that since the investigation was conducted by the DSP, therefore the requirement of section 20(A)(1) has been complied with. However, Apex Court rejected the said plea. Observations made in para 21, 23,24 and 29 are relevant, hence reproduced as under:
Para 21. It is obvious that Section 20(A)(1) is a mandatory requirement of law. First, it starts with an overriding clause and, thereafter, to emphasise its mandatory nature, it uses the expression "No" after the overriding clause. Whenever the intent of a statute is mandatory, it is clothed with a negative command. Para 23. So there can be no doubt about the mandatory nature of the requirement of this Section. Apart from that,since the said section has been amended in order to prevent the abuse of the provisions of TADA, this Court while examining the question of complying with the said provision must examine it strictly.
Para 24. Going by the aforesaid principles, this Court finds that no information about the commission of an offence under the said Act can be recorded by the Police without prior approval of the District Superintendent of Police. Therefore, the requirement of prior approval must be satisfied at the time of recording the information. If a subsequent investigation is carried on without a proper recording of the information by the DSP in terms of Section 20(A)(1), that does not cure the inherent defect of recording the information without the prior approval of the District Superintendent of Police. Whether the Deputy Superintendent of Police is a District Superintendent of Police or not is a different question which we need not decide in this case. But one thing is clear that the requirement of approval must be made at the initial stage of recording the information. If there is State vs. Yogendra Singh Bhokta FIR no. 22/09 8/15 absence of approval at the stage of recording the information, the same cannot be cured by subsequent carrying on of the investigation by the DSP. Reference in this connection is made to the principles laid down by Lord Denning speaking for the Judicial Committee of Privy Council in Benjamin Leonard MacFoy Versus United Africa Co. Ltd. [1961(3) Weekly Law Reports 1405]. Lord Denning, speaking for the unanimous Bench, pointed out the effect of an act which is void so succintly that I better quote him: "If an act is void, then it is in law a nullity. It is not only bad, but incurably bad. There is no need for an order of the court to set it aside. It is automatically null and void without more ado, though it is sometimes convenient to have the court declare it to be so. And every proceeding which is founded on it is also bad and incurably bad. You cannot put something on nothing and expect it to stay there. It will collapse."
Para 29. Therefore, the entire proceeding right from the registering of the FIR, filing of the charge-sheet and the subsequent trial is vitiated by a legal infirmity and there is a total miscarriage of justice in holding the trial, ignoring the vital requirement of law. We have, therefore, no hesitation in setting aside the impugned judgment of the Designated Court."
(emphasis supplied)
27. From the above judgment, it becomes crystal clear that some defects are incurable and if any proceeding is initiated on such incurable defects, it is liable to be collapsed. In the instant case prosecution had built up its case on the foundation of invalid sanction (Ex.PW13/A), thus the proceedings initiated on the said sanction are bound to be collapsed. The said inherent and incurable defect can not be rectified by just simply filing a fresh sanction at the belated stage of the trial.
28. Pondering over the ongoing discussion, I am of the considered opinion that there was no valid sanction at the time of taking cognizance for the offence punishable under UAPA and the said incurable defect can not be rectified by filing the subsequent sanction."
16. It was held that the subsequent sanction order dated 11.01.2013 could not cure the defect which was inherent in the first sanction order and that such a defect was incurable and could not be rectified by any subsequent sanction order.
State vs. Yogendra Singh Bhokta FIR no. 22/09 9/15
17. There is no dispute that both the sanction orders are joint in respect of all the three accused and there is no other sanction order in respect of the present accused Yogendra Singh Bhokta. By judgement dated 11.02.2013 arising out of the trial against accused Sheetal and Satish, both these sanction orders have been held to be invalid qua Sheetal and Satish. No appeal against the judgment dated 11.02.2013 has been preferred by the state. The findings rendered in the judgment dated 11.02.2013 with respect to both the sanction orders have attained finality. Both the sanction orders being joint in respect of Yogendra Singh Bhokta, Sheetal and Satish, the findings rendered on the same vide judgment dated 11.02.2013 cannot be separated from Yogendra Singh Bhokta. Neither of the sanction orders can be relied upon for the prosecution of the present accused Yogendra Singh Bhokta and no cognizance of the charge-sheet against the present accused could have been taken, let alone framing of charges as Section 45 (1) of the UAPA bars any Court from taking cognizance of any offence in the absence of the previous sanction of the appropriate Government.
18. On merits, Ld. Court of Sh. Pawan Kumar Jain in the judgment dated 11.02.2013 had held the following:-
(A) In respect of letter dated 20.02.2009 of the ASC cum SDPO on the basis of which present proceedings arise, it was found as under:- :-
"34. PW10 Mr. Jatin Narwal, the the ASP, SDPO, Chattra, Jharkhand is the author of complaint Ex. PW3/A. In his examination-in-chief, he deposed that he had sent the complaint to Special Cell of Delhi Police on February 20, 2009. From his testimony it appears that the said complaint was sent from Jharkhand. In his cross-examination, he State vs. Yogendra Singh Bhokta FIR no. 22/09 10/15 deposed that he had received the information on February 17, 2009 from his sources directly and within 5-6 hours of the receipt of said information, the information was verified from other sources. He further deposed that he did not reduce the said information in writing anywhere but he shared the said information with SP within 2-3 minutes. Thus, PW10 Mr. Jatin Narwal also failed to depose how the said complaint was sent to Delhi. He nowhere deposed that he had sent any special messenger by air to deliver the said complaint to the office of Special Cell of Delhi Police. Admittedly, the said complaint was not received in the office of Special Cell through Fax. If PW10 had even sent the said letter through special messenger by train, the special messenger could not be reached Delhi prior to February 21, 2009. Thus it was next to impossible that the said complaint could be delivered in the office of Special Cell of Delhi Police on February 20, 2009 as claimed by the prosecution. Hence, a reasonable doubt is cropped up over the genuineness and authenticity of the said complaint."
(B) In respect of police raid and apprehension of the accused persons it was found as under:-
"39. Thus, from the testimony of PW3 and PW23, it becomes crystal clear that the private cars were used in the raid and same were arranged by Insp. Lalit Mohan and the cars were called from outside and the same were not present in the premises of office of Special cell. In these circumstances, Insp. Lalit Mohan was a material witness for the prosecution but prosecution preferred not to bring him in the witness box, thus prosecution has failed to establish from where the said cars were arranged. From the testimony of PW3 and PW23, it is limpid that the cars were summoned from outside, it means that the said cars were driven by someone to the office of Special Cell of Delhi Police but surprisingly no efforts were made by the members of raiding party to join those drivers in the raid. It is surprisingly that police officials could arrange private cars immediately to conduct the raid and even the cars were delivered at their door step but the same police officials failed to persuade public persons including owner/drivers of the said cars to join the raiding party. This creates a reasonable doubt over the alleged genuine efforts made by the members of the raiding party to persuade the public persons to join the raiding party.
State vs. Yogendra Singh Bhokta FIR no. 22/09 11/15
40. Fact of using official vehicles in the raid can be verified from the log book of the official vehicles but the same can not be verified if the private vehicles are used deliberately. No doubt some time to maintain the secrecy of operation, use of private vehicles becomes mandatory but in such cases, extra precaution should be taken. But in the instant case, no such precaution was taken. Even the investigating officer did not deem it appropriate to mention the registration number of the cars in the departure entry; nor he mentioned the meter reading of the cars when it left from the Special Cell. Nor its metre reading was checked when they returned to the Special Cell office after completing the raid. In other words, there is no evidence whatsoever except the oral testimony of PW3 and PW23 that any vehicle was used in the raid. Similarly, there is no evidence on record to show how many miles the said cars had travelled on that day. Had the investigating officer maintained the log book of the said cars, it would provide immense help to the prosecution to clear doubt over the alleged raid.
41. Once the private vehicles are used in conducting the raid, it becomes the duty of the investigating officer to maintain the proper record of the vehicle but he failed to do so without any reasonable explanation. Moreover, by arranging the private vehicles from the unknown sources gives the impression that members of raiding party were able to arrange the private cars at the door step without wasting time but they failed to persuade the public persons including owners/drivers of the cars to join the raiding party. Thus, the version of prosecution on this count is nothing but a paradox, thus does not inspire any confidence. Since, the police officials failed to join any public independent witness and they also failed to produce the record of alleged private cars, their testimony is required to be examined minutely to ensure that accused persons have not been falsely implicated in this case."
(C) In respect of non-compliance of provisions of section 166 of the Cr.P.C. it was found as:-
"46. It is evident from Section 166 Cr.P.C. that whenever a State vs. Yogendra Singh Bhokta FIR no. 22/09 12/15 police officer conducts a search in the premises located in the jurisdiction of another police station, after search such police officer is required to send a notice of the search to the officer in charge of local police station and shall also send the copy of notice along with the list of items seized to the nearest Magistrate empowered to take cognizance. Since, neither PW3 nor PW24 had sent any such notice to the local police either before taking the search or thereafter thus both the investigating officers i.e. PW3 and PW24 had violated the mandatory provisions of law without any reasonable explanation."
(D) Contradictions in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses:-
the Ld. Court in the judgment dated 11.02.2013 had found several contradictions in the version of the prosecution witnesses. PW3 had deposed that when the accused Yogendra Singh Bhokta was arrested, he was unable to walk and had a plaster in his leg. This is corroborated by PW23 but PW24 had deposed that the accused Yogendra Singh Bhokta did not have any plaster on any part of his body. The Ld. Court found discrepancies in the versions of PW3, PW23 and PW24 on the aspect of police officials sitting in the cars; police officials leaving for different places after the raid; distance of the house at Gagan Vihar from Deepwali Enclave; that as per PW23, the room in question was locked but he did not say how it was opened whereas PW23 had deposed that it was locked, no injury on Yogendra Singh Bhokta was found recorded in the arrest memo and no public persons were asked to join the investigation.
(E) On merits of the interception conversations, it was observed as under :-
"71. From the above, it becomes crystal clear that the alleged intercepted conversations are not helpful to the prosecution to prove the culpability of the accused Sheetal and Satish either for the offence punishable under Section 18 or under Section 20 of the Act. There is no other admissible evidence on record to prove the culpability of the accused State vs. Yogendra Singh Bhokta FIR no. 22/09 13/15 persons for the offence punishable under Section 18 and 20 of the Act."
19. There is no dispute that present accused Yogendra Singh Bhokta alongwith other accused Sheetal and Satish were apprehended together, from the same room, and by the same police team. There cannot be any dispute that evidence against present accused Yogendra Singh Bhokta as well as other two accused Sheetal and Satish is inseparable and indivisible.
20. In the case of Sunil Kumar vs. State, 2000 (1) Crimes 73 Delhi, the Hon'ble High Court has been pleased to hold that where the evidence relied against all the accused is inseparable and indivisible and some accused have been acquitted, the remaining accused cannot be treated differently on the basis of the same evidence. In the case of Amarjit vs. State, 1996 (1) CCC 465 (Delhi), the Hon'ble High Court was pleased to hold that where the co-accused stood acquitted on the ground that the prosecution witness was not worthy of reliance, then on the same evidence, the other accused who had been declared a proclaimed offender cannot be permitted to undergo ordeal of a trial. In the case of Urmila Devi vs. State, 2006 (91) DRJ 341, the Hon'ble High Court while placing reliance on the case of Amarjit vs. State (supra) was pleased to observe as under:-
"17.Examining the allegations against the present petitioner, I find that the same are not separable and divisible from the allegations in respect of the other accused who have been acquitted. Apart from composite allegations made against the present petitioner and other accused, there is no separate and distinct case made out against the present petitioner which would point in the direction of a possible conviction.
18. The order of acquittal dated 24.09.2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in respect of other accused clearly records that it is doubtful as to whether the State vs. Yogendra Singh Bhokta FIR no. 22/09 14/15 deceased (Meenu) was subjected to cruelty or harassment for the sake of dowry by any of the accused persons. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, therefore, concluded that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case against any of the accused persons and that it would not be safe to act upon the testimony of the prosecution witnesses. When such a finding has been recorded in respect of the co- accused and where the evidence against the present petitioner is neither separable nor divisible from that against the co-accused, it would not be in the interest of justice to permit the present petitioner to be subjected to a trial when the end result is more than clear. Subjecting the present petitioner to trial would be an exercise in futility."
21. In the present case, the joint sanction orders under Section 45 (2) UAPA qua present accused Yogendra Singh Bhokta as well as other two accused Sheetal and Satish were found to be illegal. The evidence ag ainst other two accused Sheetal and Satish and present accused Yogendra Singh Bhokta is identical, inseparable and indivisible. Keeping in view the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble High Court in the cases of Sunil Kumar vs. State (supra), Amarjit vs. State (supra) and Urmila Devi vs. State (supra), the proceedings against the accused Yogendra Singh Bhokta cannot be permitted to be continued.
22. For the reasons recorded above, the present accused Yogendra Singh Bhokta @ Soren @ Vinay @ Shiv Kumar stands acquitted for the offences punishable under Section 18 and 20 of the UAPA. However, in compliance of provisions of Section 437A Cr.P.C., fresh bail bonds of the accused be furnished.
23. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court (REETESH SINGH) on 29th November, 2014 ASJ-02/FTC, PHC/ND 29/11/2014 State vs. Yogendra Singh Bhokta FIR no. 22/09 15/15