Karnataka High Court
Suhail Basha vs National Investigating Agency ... on 25 January, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:3612-DB
CRL.A No.1631 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1631 OF 2023 - 21(NIA)
BETWEEN:
SUHAIL BASHA
S/O AMEER BASHA,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
R/AT NO 306, 1ST CROSS,
ASHWATHNAGAR,
UKBA MASJID STREET,
THANISANDRA, BENGALURU-560045.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. D.R.RAVISHANKAR, SR. ADV. FOR
SRI. MOHAMMED TAHIR., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by NATIONAL INVESTIGATING AGENCY
SANDHYA S
Location: High MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS,
Court of Karnataka GOI, BRANCH OFFICE HYDERABAD,
REP. BY SPL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
OFFICE AT HIGH COURT COMPLEX,
OPP. TO VIDHAN SOUDHA,
BANGALORE - 560001.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. PRASANNA KUMAR P., SPECIAL PP.)
THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S.21(1) R/W 21(4) OF N.I.A ACT,
2008 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER
DATED 10.08.2023 AND GRANTING REGULAR BAIL TO
APPELLANT IN SPL.C.C.NO.152/2021 U/S 16,18,20 OF
UA(P)ACT, 1967 SEC.120B,34,149 R/W
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:3612-DB
CRL.A No.1631 of 2023
143,145,147,188,427,436,353 OF IPC AND SEC.2 OF
KARNATAKA PREVENTION OF DESTRUCTION OF LOSS OF
PROPERTY ACT, WHEREIN THE APPELLANT IS ARRAIGNED AS
ACCUSED NO.6, SAME IS PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE 49th
ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPL. COURT FOR
NIA CASES, BANGALORE (CCH-50).
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR DICTATING JUDGMENT,
THIS DAY, BASAVARAJA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The appellant/accused No.6-Suhail Basha has preferred this Appeal Under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 against the order dated 10th August, 2023 passed in Special Case No.152 of 2021 by the XLIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (Special Judge for trial of NIA Cases) (CCH-50).
2. The Appellant has stated that on 11th August, 2021 at about 11.00 pm, a condemnable riot occurred in the vicinity of Devarajeevanahalli Police Station in which the said police station was targeted and scores of private and public vehicles were damaged. Several cases were registered in connection with this incident and subsequently, in Crime No.195 of 2020, stringent terror -3- NC: 2024:KHC:3612-DB CRL.A No.1631 of 2023 provision under Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as "UA(P) Act"), was invoked to target those who were in the forefront of the police station since 7.30 pm till 10.00 pm in connection with peaceful agitation with respect to CAA. On 25th August, 2020, the appellant was arrested with the malicious intention to target him and his party under false charges. On 21st September, 2020, respondent-National Investigation Agency (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as "NIA") took over the investigation, and gave a Press release expressing its intentions and directions. Even without entering into the actual investigation, the respondent-NIA has conducted investigation of this case and has implicated the appellant for the offence under Sections 16, 18 and 20 of UA(P) Act; Section 120B, 34, 149 read with 143, 145, 147, 188, 427, 436, 353 of Indian Penal Code; and Section 2 of the Karnataka Prevention of Destruction of Loss of Property Act, 1981 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as "KPDLP Act") and arraigned him as accused No.6 in the case. Subsequently, securing -4- NC: 2024:KHC:3612-DB CRL.A No.1631 of 2023 arbitrary sanction, filed arbitrary and malicious charge sheet which is selective against a particular section without having an iota of evidence of schedule offences. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed regular bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Same came to be rejected sans applying ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Being aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the trial court, the appellant filed appeal before this Court in Criminal Appeal No.1878 of 2022. Vide order dated 14th June, 2023, this Court disposed of the said Criminal Appeal with a direction and liberty to the accused to approach the trial Court with fresh application. The trial Court rejected the bail application on 10th August, 2023. Feeling aggrieved by the said order dated 10th August, 2023, the appellant has presented this appeal.
3. Sri D.R. Ravishankar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant/accused submits that after investigation, respondent-NIA filed a charge sheet -5- NC: 2024:KHC:3612-DB CRL.A No.1631 of 2023 arraigning this appellant as Accused No.6 and divided all the accused into four categories, i.e. accused 1 to 24 charging under Sections 16, 18 and 20 of the UA (P) Act, under Sections 120B, 143, 147, 148, 188, 353, 436, 427 read with Section 34 and 149 of Indian Penal Code and Section 2 of KPDLP Act; accused 25 to 36 charging under Sections 120B, 143, 147, 148, 188, 353, 436, 427 read with Sections 34 and 149 of Indian Penal Code and Section 2 of KPDLP Act; accused 37 to 109 charging under Sections 120B, 143, 147, 148, 188 read with Sections 34 and 149 of Indian Penal Code; and as regards the last category consisting of accused 110-146, charge sheet is not filed. It is contended that the appellant is falsely implicated by the respondent-NIA by concealing the actual story and by presenting the false story, only in order to shield the actual offenders and to conceal the real events, which has resulted for such destruction.
4. Further, it is contended that respondent-NIA has recorded the statement under Section 161 of Code of -6- NC: 2024:KHC:3612-DB CRL.A No.1631 of 2023 Criminal Procedure of LW-25 Fayaz Ahmed Khan on 27th September, 2020, LW-29 Allah Baksha Yaligar on 26th September, 2020, LW-122 Nawaz Pasha and LW-134 (protected witness A), without mentioning the date consciously. Copies of the three statements are enclosed to the appeal as Annexure-J.
5. The statements of LW-25 and LW29 were given on 19th August, 2020 and 18th August, 2020 which are produced to this appeal as Annexure-K. It is contended that these statements are recorded at the first instance. Immediately after the incident, these two witnesses gave detailed account of entire incident. Though in the first statement, LW25 just mentioned the name of the petitioner on the crime spot, but no allegation of any wrongdoing or any overt act was made against the appellant as alleged in the fabricated statement recorded and presented by the respondent-NIA. At the very first instance, these statements were concealed by the respondent-NIA and only after the order dated 06th June, -7- NC: 2024:KHC:3612-DB CRL.A No.1631 of 2023 2022 of this Court passed in Writ Petition No.19012 of 2021, these statements are produced before the Special Court, which only exhibit the intent of respondent-NIA targeting a particular person.
6. It is further contended that the statement of the protected witnesses were not supplied to the appellant in the month of September, 2022. These statements are of wrongdoers who are part of mob and who have taken part in the riot. It is obvious that, under coercion these statements are recorded only to establish false case against the appellant. Law has devised mechanism in the Code of Criminal Procedure under Section 306 to record the statement of accomplice/approver by advicing the agency not to mislead the Court and these aspects are sufficient to grant bail to the appellant/accused.
7. Further, it is submitted that LW-122 is the relative of accused 12 and 13 and alleged to have identified the appellant at the crime scene in the video shown to him by -8- NC: 2024:KHC:3612-DB CRL.A No.1631 of 2023 the respondent-NIA, only on account of coercion and attempt to escape from the implication. Moreover, the said video was neither provided to the appellant nor pointed out to the Court, as each video has unique number and placed in the Court. Several are made accused in this case and only accused 1 to 24 are charged with stringent provisions of UA (P) Act only on the basis of specific overt act of burning vehicles by pouring petrol. Even prima facie it establishes the presence of the accused, it does not qualify to charge under UA (P) Act, and in that, even the accused is equated with other rioters who were charged under provisions of Indian Penal Code and received the order of bail.
8. Further, there is no ingredient of Sections 16, 18 and 20 of UA (P) Act as it is a simple riot incident wherein, due to police inaction, some discontent mob attacked the police personnel and the parked vehicles were blown up only with intention to defame, stigmatize and target one set of community who assert that their rights used to be -9- NC: 2024:KHC:3612-DB CRL.A No.1631 of 2023 muzzled by divisive forces. The real conspirators never investigated and are falsely implicated the innocents who actually supported the police.
9. Further, it is submitted that the Devarajeevanahalli Police has registered more than 20 cases and made this appellant/accused in seventeen cases of which one case is investigated by the NIA, i.e. in Crime No.195 of 2020 and except this case, remaining 16 cases are investigated by the State police. The details of cases registered, are as under:
Sl. Rank of
Crime No. Case No. Court Hall the
No. Accused
1. 195/2020 SC 152/2021 CCH 50 6
2. 197/2020 SC 1617/2021 CCH 20 39
3. 198/2020 SC 1238/2021 CCH 20 35
4. 199/2020 SC 1114/2021 CCH 20 33
5. 200/2020 SC 446/2021 CCH 20 38
6. 201/2020 SC 357/2021 CCH 20 41
7. 202/2020 SC 368/2021 CCH 20 37
8. 203/2020 SC 226/2022 CCH 20 21
9. 205/2020 CC 51458/2021 11th ACMM 40
10. 206/2020 SC 1618/2021 CCH 20 37
11. 212/2020 SC 316/2021 CCH 20 33
12. 220/2020 CC 55013/2020 11th ACMM 37
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:3612-DB
CRL.A No.1631 of 2023
13. 221/2020 SC 225/2022 CCH 20 17
14. 223/2020 SC 961/2020 CCH 20 27
15. 227/2020 SC 356/2021 CCH 20 20
16. 234/2020 SC 195 2021 CCH 20 35
17. 249/2020 SC 1236/2021 CCH 20 23
10. In none of the abovementioned cases, the allegation against the appellant is of this nature and the allegation, if any, of setting fire, it is against the other persons. Moreover, in all the cases, most of the witnesses are the police personnel and the said aspect is very important to consider the bail in the case, as most of the investigation is done by the respondent-NIA itself. It is contended that in the above cases investigated by the State Police, the allegation of instigating the crowd, so also, bringing petrol to burn the vehicles, is not there against this appellant/accused and there is no CCTV footage available against the appellant/accused.
11. It is further contended that the trial Court has not appreciated the evidence on record in its proper perspective and had merely relied upon statement made
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:3612-DB CRL.A No.1631 of 2023 under Section 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure and had deliberately concealed the statements recorded at the first instance.
12. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that almost for three years now, the appellant is in judicial custody. Since there are more than 100 accused in the case, considering the length of time for concluding the trial, relying upon the judgment of SHAHEEN WELFARE ASSOCIATION v. UNION OF INDIA reported in (1996)2 SCC 616, the learned Senior Counsel prays for granting relief of bail to the accused/appellant herein. It is also contended that the appellant cannot be made to suffer in jail for an uncertain period until it is shown from the investigation material that there, indeed, was participation and involvement of the appellant/accused in the commission of crime. The respondent-NIA is solely relying upon the fabricated statement of witnesses LW25 and LW29. It is also submitted that the appellant has strong roots in the
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:3612-DB CRL.A No.1631 of 2023 society and he has permanent abode and a family to support and there is no likelihood of him to flee from justice. Hence, the learned Senior Counsel sought for allowing this appeal by imposing any conditions and releasing the accused/appellant on bail. To substantiate his arguments he relied upon the judgments Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of IRFAN v. STATE OF KARNATAKA rendered in SLA (Cri.)No.7388 of 2023 decided on 16th October, 2023; and in the case of P. CHIDAMBARAM v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT reported in (2019) AIR (SC) 4198.
13. Per contra, Sri Prasanna Kumar P, learned Special Public Prosecutor for NIA, reasserting the facts of the case as to the mob trying to attack Devarajeevanahalli Police Station on the evening of 11th August, 2020, submitted that the unruly mob was creating ruckus in precincts of said Police Station and while the mob tried to attack the police station, Police Inspector N.N. Keshava Murthy made efforts to contain and pacify the mob. The
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC:3612-DB CRL.A No.1631 of 2023 mob attacked the police officers with weapons and stones. While the police personnel were trying to stop the mob from entering the police station, some miscreants from the mob, burnt the police vehicles and the vehicles of staff parked in the station premises, so also, burnt two- wheelers parked in the cellar. Though police resorted to firing in the air to disperse the mob, the mob tried to snatch the weapons from the police and attacked the police station. The learned Counsel submits that having regard to the gravity of offence, the Central Government, has vide order dated 23rd September, 2020 issued under Section 6(4) read with Section 8 of National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 directed the respondent-NIA to take up investigation of the said case. Accordingly, the respondent-NIA took over investigation and conducted searches at several locations and arrested accused in connection with above case. Further, during the course of investigation, cell phones, SIM cards and memory cards have been seized by respondent-NIA. The accused were actively participating in riot, so also, in deterring police
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC:3612-DB CRL.A No.1631 of 2023 personnel from discharging their duties. Learned Special Public Prosecutor submits that the appellant/accused No.6, along with accused No.8 and other accused were actively involved in commission of the aforementioned offences on the said date and the accused No.6 was taken into custody by the State Police on 25th August, 2020 and charge sheet was filed before the Special Court on 05th February, 2021. It is further submitted that, at the scene of crime, the present accused/appellant was seen bringing petrol to burn the vehicles and has been identified by independent witnesses as well as police witnesses, wherein they burnt a two-wheeler parked in the station premise, as such, the accused/appellant herein has committed the terrorist act as defined under Section 15 of UA (P) Act. Further, the appellant herein was part of unlawful assembly armed with iron rod, stones, car bumper rods, etc. He further submits that the accused took part in the conspiracy hatched to strike terror in the minds of public and to attack the police personnel, who were on duty. The Call Detail Records of the accused also reveal as to number of calls between him
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC:3612-DB CRL.A No.1631 of 2023 and other accused from his mobile, of which, there are 41 incoming and 40 outgoing calls from his mobile phone during the relevant point of time.
14. The forensic analysis of the mobile phone seized from the possession of accused No.6 reveals existence of audio recording in kannada language regarding said riot. Thus, the appellant herein being the member of terrorist gang, in pursuance of the conspiracy hatched, committed terrorist act leading to large-scale destruction and damage to Government property, so also, to public vehicles and by causing injury to the police personnel. He further submits that even after imposition of Section 144 of Code of Criminal Procedure, the appellant continued to involve in the crime and participated with the unruly mob in violence and vandalised the Government property, as such, the appellant/accused has committed the terrorist act. It is submitted that the appellant herein committed offence under Sections 16, 18 and 20 of UA (P) Act which are punishable with imprisonment for life. He submits that the
- 16 -
NC: 2024:KHC:3612-DB CRL.A No.1631 of 2023 final report filed under Section 173 of Code of Criminal Procedure indicates prima facie case against accused/appellant herein.
15. His further submission is that, the bar imposed under proviso to Section 43-D(5) of the UA (P) Act would be applicable to the case on hand. When the appellant herein approached this Court in Criminal Appeal No.1878 of 2022, this court disposed of the said Appeal with liberty to the appellant to approach the learned Special Court with fresh bail application. The Special Court, by order dated 10th August, 2023, rejected the application filed by appellant/accused.
16. As regards the submission made by the learned Senior Counsel that the accused herein has been falsely implicated only to shield the actual offender, the learned Special Public Prosecutor submits that the material collected by the respondent-NIA would clearly indicate that the accused is a close associate of accused No.8.
- 17 -
NC: 2024:KHC:3612-DB CRL.A No.1631 of 2023 Appellant arrived at the scene of crime with accused No.8 in an autorickshaw only with an intention to commit aforesaid offence. He submits that LW-25 and 29 have clearly stated that the appellant herein was a part of unruly mob and seen pouring inflammable substance on a two-wheeler parked in the station premises. Further, LW- 122 has also stated that the accused was present in the mob at DJ Halli Police station premises. The same is also fortified by the cell tower location in the CDR of mobile phone. The submission of learned Senior Counsel that the appellant is handpicked out of four categories has been denied by the learned Special Public Prosecutor stating the same is false and baseless. It is submitted that respondent-NIA is a premier investigating Agency and conducts itself in most proficient manner and files charge sheet based on material that is revealed during course of investigation alone. It is also submitted that respondent- NIA has not concealed any statement, as alleged. Further, the learned SPP submits that no person shall be released on bail, if on perusal, the Special Court is of the
- 18 -
NC: 2024:KHC:3612-DB CRL.A No.1631 of 2023 opinion that prima facie case exists as against the accused. It is submitted that the accused, who are similarly placed as that of the accused, having approached this Court seeking relief of bail, this Court through various orders in Criminal Appeal No.814 of 2022 c/w 788 of 2022, 1448 of 2021, 1640 of 2021, 585 of 2021, 567 of 2021, 582 of 2021, 745 of 2021 and 124 of 2023, this Court was pleased to reject said appeals.
17. The learned Special Public Prosecutor submits that the provisions of Section 15 of the UA (P) Act makes it clear that usage of inflammable substance to cause injuries to person or damage to properties with an intention to strike terror or with an intent to threaten or likely to threaten the unity, integrity, security or sovereignty of India or strike terror in the people or any section or cause destruction of any property of the State Government or its agencies, amounts to a terrorist act. In the present case, the investigation reveals that petrol bottles were used while attacking the police personnel,
- 19 -
NC: 2024:KHC:3612-DB CRL.A No.1631 of 2023 police station and the vehicles parked in the station premises, which is nothing but a terrorist act. With regard to submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the presence of the appellant herein in the video footages, in itself, does not absolve the liability of the appellant from the aforementioned crime is concerned, the learned Special Public Prosecutor submits that the statements of witnesses and other independent material placed on record would prove that the role of the appellant/accused No.6 is apparent in the crime. He also submits that the bar imposed under Section 43D(5) of UA (P) Act would clearly apply to the case on hand. Therefore, the learned Special Public Prosecutor sought for dismissal of the appeal. To substantiate his arguments, the learned Special Public Prosecutor places reliance on the following judgments:
1. LAKSHMAN SINGH v. STATE OF BIHAR -
2021(9) SCC 191;
2. INDER SINGH AND OTHERS v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN - 2015(2) SCC 734;
- 20 -
NC: 2024:KHC:3612-DB CRL.A No.1631 of 2023
3. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. RAMLAL DEVAPPA RATHOD AND OTHERS -
2015(15) SCC 77;
4. SURINDER KUMAR v. STATE OF PUNJAB -
2020(2) SCC 563;
5. GOUTAM JOARDAR v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL - CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1181 OF 2019 (SC) ;
6. MOHD. KHALID v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL
- 2002(7) SCC 344; and
7. STATE OF NCT DELHI v. RAJ KUMAR @ LOVEPREET @ LOVELY rendered in SLP (Crl.) No.2503 of 2021 dated 03rd January, 2004;
18. Having heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the State, and having perused the material placed on record, the following points would arise for our consideration in this appeal:
1. Whether the appellant has made out a ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the trial Court?
2. What Order?
- 21 -
NC: 2024:KHC:3612-DB CRL.A No.1631 of 2023
19. Our answer to the above points is as under:
Point No.1: In the negative; Point No.2: as per final order
20. We have carefully examined the material placed before this Court.
21. On the basis of First Information Statement filed by Sri N.N. Keshava Murthy, Police Inspector of Devarajeevanahalli Police Station, Devarajeevanahalli Police registered a case in Crime No.195 of 2010 for offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 307, 436, 353, 332, 333, 427, 504, 506, 149 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code; Section 4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984; and Section 2 of KPDLP Act, 1981. Thereafter, considering the seriousness of the offence, Central Government directed the National Investigation Agency to take up investigation of crime No.195 of 2010 of Devarajeevanahalli Police Station as
- 22 -
NC: 2024:KHC:3612-DB CRL.A No.1631 of 2023 contemplated under Section 6 of National Investigation Agency Act, 2008. Thereafter, National Investigation Agency re-registered case in R.No.34/2020/National Investigation Agency/DLI for the offence punishable under Sections 15, 16, 18 and Section 20 of UA (P) Act; Section 143 and 147, 307, 436, 353, 332, 333, 427, 504, 506, 149 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code; and Section 4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 and Section 2 of KPDLP Act, 1981 and submitted charge-sheet against the accused for aforesaid offences.
22. Prior to filing this appeal, the appellant/accused preferred Criminal Appeal No.1878 of 2022 before this Court against the order passed by the trial Court in Special CC No.152 of 2021 dated 20th July, 2022. The said appeal came to be disposed of vide order dated 14th June, 2023, giving liberty to the appellant/accused to approach the Special Court with fresh application for bail by producing all the documents available with him for claiming bail. Accordingly, the appellant filed fresh bail application
- 23 -
NC: 2024:KHC:3612-DB CRL.A No.1631 of 2023 before the trial Court and produced all the material before the trial Court. On perusal of the material, trial Court dismissed the bail application.
23. On careful examination of the material, what is found is, the role of accused No.6-Suhail Pasha is that he is an SDPI associate and closely connected to Mohammed Zaid (A-8). He came to know about the Naveen's Facebook post through Social media. He, along with Mohammed Zaid (A-9), and others, being members of the terrorist gang, in order to commit the terrorist act in the DJ Halli area, reached DJ Halli Police Station without wasting any time and actively participated in the crime and instigated the public to indulge in violent acts in pursuance of the conspiracy. Despite knowing that Section 144 of Cr.PC was imposed in the area and therefore, it was illegal to remain there as part of the mob, he continued to be in the unlawful assembly. Location of his mobile number was latched with DJ Halli PS tower. Statements of B parties have been recorded to prove the
- 24 -
NC: 2024:KHC:3612-DB CRL.A No.1631 of 2023 presence of accused at scene of crime during the time of offence in the instant case. Further, other prosecution witnesses have given their statements during investigation that this accused was seen in the Scene of crime actively participating in burning of vehicles by pouring petrol, along with other co-accused. The policemen on duty could not therefore effectively discharge their duties. During the time of offence, he was found to be in touch with many people, since there are about 41 incoming and 40 outgoing calls from his mobile phone. Forensic analysis of his Samsung mobile phone revealed an audio recording in Kannada Language regarding Nabi and DJ Halli riots, and Facebook messenger chats regarding DJ Halli riots. Thus, A-6 was a member of unlawful assembly, and pursuant to the conspiracy hatched with other members of the terrorist gang, committed terrorist act leading to a large scale destruction of Police station building, government and private vehicles and causing mischief by fire and injury to the police personnel on duty and striking terror in the society.
- 25 -
NC: 2024:KHC:3612-DB CRL.A No.1631 of 2023
24. A perusal of the statements of LWs25 and 29 and the statement of witnesses Mohammed Afsar, Mohammed Abeed, Mohammed Tabrez, reveals that the appellant/accused No.6 was present in the unruly mob and actively participated in setting ablaze the vehicles and the Investigating Officer has also collected prima facie material as to the terrorist act of this appellant.
25. It is true that at the initial stage the State Police did not invoke the provisions of UA (P) Act, but subsequently, the National Investigating Agency inserted the offence punishable under the penal provisions of UA (P) Act. On this ground, at this stage, this Court cannot hold that respondent-National Investigation Agency should not have invoked the provisions of UA (P) Act on the basis of the arguments advanced on behalf of this appellant. On perusal of the statement of witnesses recorded by the Investigating Officer and other material including the sanction obtained from the Ministry of Home Affairs (CTCR
- 26 -
NC: 2024:KHC:3612-DB CRL.A No.1631 of 2023 Division), Government of India, as per the provisions of Section 45(1) of the UA (P) Act, vide order No.11011/62/2020/NIA dated 04th February, 2021, for prosecuting accused 1 to 24, at this stage, we are of the considered view that there are prima facie materials against this appellant.
26. The arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant, as stated supra, cannot be considered at this stage in view of the provisions of Section 43-D(5) of UA (P) Act. Only after full-fledged trial, the trial Court can appreciate the evidence on record.
27. On re-examination of the entire material placed before us and keeping in mind the decisions relied upon by both parties, we do not find any legal infirmities/illegalities in the impugned order passed by the trial Court. Hence, we answer point No.1 in the negative.
- 27 -
NC: 2024:KHC:3612-DB CRL.A No.1631 of 2023 Regarding Point No.2:
28. For the aforesaid reasons and discussions, we proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE LNN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1