Patna High Court
Tirpurari Singh @ T.P. Singh vs The State Of Bihar on 6 April, 2023
Author: A. M. Badar
Bench: A. M. Badar, Chandra Shekhar Jha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.930 of 2022
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-5 Year-2019 Thana- NIA District- Patna
======================================================
Tirpurari Singh @ T.P. Singh Son of Late Bhuneshwar Singh R/V-
Makdumpur, P.S- Tankuppa, Distt- Gaya, Bihar also at Housing Colony,
Argora Chauk, PS- Arora, Purana Pundag Mohalla, Ranchi Jharkhand
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. The Union of India through the Director General, National Investigation
Agency, C.G.O complex Lodhi Road, New Delhi
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Amit Pandey, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Bipin Kumar, A.P.P.
For the Union of India : Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh, NIA
Mr. Ankit Kumar Singh, JC to NIA
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. M. BADAR
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. M. BADAR)
Date : 06-04-2023
This is an appeal under Section 21(4) of the National
Investigating Agency Act, 2008, preferred by the appellant
challenging the order dated 18.10.2022 passed by the learned
Special Judge, NIA, Patna, in Special Case No. 02 of 2019
arising out of R.C.Case No. 05 of 2019, thereby rejecting the
bail application filed by appellant Tripurari Singh @ T.P. Singh
by holding that on earlier three occasions, bail petition of the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.930 of 2022 dt.06-04-2023
2/10
appellant had been heard and decided by that court on merits,
apart from the fact that even appeal challenging one of that
order has been rejected by the Division Bench of this Court
vide judgment and order dated 22.11.2021 passed in Cr. Appeal
(DB) No. 180 of 2021.
2. The appellant is charged for the offences
punishable under Sections 414, 467, 468, 471 and 474 of the
Indian Penal Code as well as under Sections 25(1-a), 25(1-A),
25(1-AA), 25(1-B)(a), 26, 29 and 35 of the Arms Act so also
under Sections 16, 17, 18, 18B and 19 of the Unlawful
Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.
3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
appellant at sufficient length of time. By taking us through the
relevant portion of the charge-sheet he argued that the only
evidence against the appellant as claimed by the Prosecuting
Agency is that of confessional statement of co-accused Suraj
son of Prabhu Prasad recorded by Police. He further argued that
if that confessional statement recorded by Police which is at
Page 83 of the paper book is perused then that confessional
statement is not containing any allegation against the appellant
in respect of any of the act of the offence alleged by the
Prosecuting Agency. In fact, co-accused Suraj has not even
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.930 of 2022 dt.06-04-2023
3/10
named appellant Tripurari Singh @ T.P. Singh in his
confessional statement to Police, leave apart the fact that
confession made to the Police Officer cannot be looked into by
the court and cannot form evidence against the accused. It is
further argued that the prosecution has also claimed that the
appellant used to travel for supplying arms and he has funded
Rs. 60,000/- to the Bhikhan Ganju one of the accused.
However, there is no tangible evidence in that regard. As
against this, the learned Prosecutor has read opinion of the
Investigator reflected in the charge-sheet to demonstrate that
there is evidence against the appellant. However, he is not in a
position to point out any evidence against the appellant in the
form of statements of witnesses or the bank accounts. The
learned Prosecutor has drew our attention to the statement of
accounts at page-87 issued by the Union Bank of India and
argued that this is account of Shiv Enterprises which is owned
by the appellant. However, the account statement does not
reflect this fact.
4.We have considered the submissions so advanced.
We have also perused the materials placed on record of this
appeal.
5. At initial stage, the offence was registered on the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.930 of 2022 dt.06-04-2023
4/10
basis of F.I.R. lodged by Vijay Kumar Yadav, Sub Inspector of
Bihar Police, vide Crime No. 35 of 2019 on 07.02.2019 for
offences under Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code as well as
under Sections 25(1-B)(a), 26 and 35 of the Arms Act against
the accused persons named in the F.I.R. as well as against some
unknown person. Subsequently thereto, the investigation of the
subject crime was entrusted to the National Investigating
Agency and accordingly F.I.R. bearing No. RC-
05/2019/NIA/DLI came to be registered on 28.02.2019. The
routine investigation ensued leading to filing of the charge-
sheet against the accused persons including the present
appellant. The appellant was arrested on 16.02.2019 and since
then he is under detention as an under trial prisoner.
6. We have noted the submissions of the learned
counsel for the appellant as well as the learned Prosecutor
appearing for the respondent with our comments. We reiterate
that in the wake of rejection of earlier bail application of the
appellant by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated
22.11.2021passed in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 180 of 2021 whereby the impugned order passed earlier rejecting the bail application was confirmed, it is not possible for us to enter into the arena of merits of the arguments advanced by the parties. Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.930 of 2022 dt.06-04-2023 5/10 The learned Division Bench of this Court has already observed in the said order that the material collected during the investigation against the appellant is highly incriminating.
7. Be that as it may, there is one another angle to the case in hand.
8. The appellant is undergoing pre-trial detention from 16.02.2019. It is not in dispute that the prosecution has cited as many as 176 prosecution witnesses. The charge is reportedly framed by the learned Special Court under the N.I.A. Act on 23.02.2022. While rejecting the appeal of the present appellant on earlier occasion, i.e., 22.11.2021, the coordinate Bench of this Court had directed thus in paragraph 17 of the said order:-
"Since the appellant is in custody for over two years, the trial court is directed to conduct the trial expeditiously and conclude the same as early as possible."
9. We are at pains to note that as of now the trial is not concluded despite lapse of about one and half years from the passing of the judgment directing expeditious disposal of the trial. It is reported to us by the learned counsel for the appellant and not disputed by the learned Prosecutor that as of now only two witnesses are examined by the prosecution and Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.930 of 2022 dt.06-04-2023 6/10 they are P.W.1 Nagina Kumar, A.S.I., Bihar Police and P.W. 2 Vijay Kumar Yadav, Sub-Inspector of Bihar Police. This second prosecution witness was examined way back on 28.09.2022. It is further reported that the N.I.A. Court at Patna where the subject trial is pending is still vacant. Thus, we are unable to comprehend the time which may take for disposal of the trial in which as of now 174 prosecution witnesses are yet to be examined.
10. Now comes the bar for entertaining bail application in the light of provisions of Section 43-D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 which reads thus:-
"Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code, no person accused of an offence punishable under Chapters IV and VI of this Act shall, if in custody, be released on bail or on his own bond unless the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity of being heard on the application for such release:
Provided that such accused person shall not be released on bail or on his own bond if the Court, on a perusal of the case diary or the report made under section 173 of the Code is of the opinion that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against such person is prima Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.930 of 2022 dt.06-04-2023 7/10 facie true."
11. Bare perusal of this provision makes it clear that the person accused of an offence under the U.A.P.A. Act cannot be released on bail unless and until opportunity of hearing is accorded to the Prosecutor. Such bail application has to be rejected, if on perusal of the case diary and Police report made under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C., the Court is of the opinion that there is reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against such an accused person is prima facie true. The question which falls for consideration is whether this provision puts a complete embargo on power of the Court to grant bail to the person accused of the offence punishable under the U.A.P.A. Act. In the matter of Union of India Vs. K.A. Najeeb reported in (2021) 3 Supreme Court Cases 713, in paragraph 18 of the said judgment the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed thus:-
"Adverting to the case at hand, we are conscious of the fact that the charges levelled against the respondent are grave and a serious threat to societal harmony. Had it been a case at the threshold, we would have outrightly turned down the respondent's Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.930 of 2022 dt.06-04-2023 8/10 prayer. However, keeping in mind the length of the period spent by him in custody and the unlikelihood of the trial being completed anytime soon, the High Court appears to have been left with no other option except to grant bail. An attempt has been made to strike a balance between the appellant's right to lead evidence of its choice and establish the charges beyond any doubt and simultaneously the respondent's rights guaranteed under Part III of our Constitution have been well protected."
12. Thus, in the light of these observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court vis-a-vis the facts of the instant case wherein the trial is not likely to be completed in few more years, we have no alternative but to release the appellant on bail.
13. Though the learned Prosecutor has relied on judgment in the case of Najeeb (Supra), the observations made therein are not helpful for the prosecution as in the case in hand as of now 174 prosecution witnesses are yet to be examined and Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.930 of 2022 dt.06-04-2023 9/10 the concerned Court is reportedly vacant. Hence, the following orders:
I. The appeal is allowed.
II. The impugned order dated 18.10.2022 passed by the learned Special Judge, NIA, Patna, in Special Case No. 02 of 2019, arising out of R.C.Case No. 05 of 2019, thereby rejecting the bail application of the appellant is quashed and set aside.
III. Appellant/accused Tripurari Singh @ T. P. Singh in Special Case No. 02 of 2019, arising out of R.C.Case No. 05 of 2019, pending on the file of Special Judge-N.I.A., Patna, for the offences punishable under Sections 414, 467, 468, 471 and 474 of the Indian Penal Code as well as Sections 25(1-a), 25(1-
A), 25(1-AA), 25(1-B)(a), 26, 29 and 35 of the Arms Act so also under Sections 16, 17, 18, 18B and 19 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, is directed to be released on bail on executing P.R. bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) and on furnishing two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Trial Court.
IV. As a condition of this order the appellant should attend each and every date fixed for hearing by the learned trial Court and his absence on two successive dates should Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.930 of 2022 dt.06-04-2023 10/10 result in cancellation of his bail bond and taking him in custody by the learned trial Court.
V. The appellant should not commit any offence while enjoying liberty in terms of this order.
VI. The appellant should not tamper prosecution evidence in any manner and he should not extend any threat, promise of inducement to the persons acquainted with the facts of the accusation against him so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer.
14. The appellant/accused to remove all office objections forthwith and the Registry to issue the certified copy of this order only after removal of office objections by the appellant/accused.
(A. M. Badar, J) ( Chandra Shekhar Jha, J) Vats/Mkr/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE N.A. Uploading Date 11.04.2023 Transmission Date 11.04.2023