Jharkhand High Court
Nyaz Ahmed vs Union Of India Through Nia on 29 November, 2022
Author: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay, Ambuj Nath
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1007 of 2022
---------
Nyaz Ahmed ... ... Appellant
Versus
Union of India through NIA ... ... Respondent
---------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH
---------
For the Appellant : Mr. Kaushik Sarkhel, Advocate For the N.I.A. : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Spl.P.P.
---------
I.A. No. 10613 of 2022 04/29.11.2022 Heard Mr. Kaushik Sarkhel, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned Spl.P.P. for the N.I.A. This application has been preferred by the appellant for condoning the delay of 64 days in filing the appeal.
Having been satisfied with the reasons assigned in the instant application, the same is allowed and delay of 64 days in preferring the appeal is, hereby, condoned.
I.A. No. 10613 of 2022 is allowed and disposed of.
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1007 of 2022 This appeal is directed against the order dated 08.06.2022 passed by Sri Madhuresh Kumar Verma, learned AJC XVI cum Spl. Judge, NIA, Ranchi in A.B.P. No. 897 of 2022 whereby and whereunder the prayer for anticipatory bail of the appellant has been rejected.
It has been alleged that on an information that some extremists are roaming in the forest area and were planning to execute a big incident, the police personnel along with the CRPF personnel had conducted joint search operation. It has further been alleged that while the troops were moving on the forward slope of Lanji forest hill under Toklo Police Station some improvised explosive device had blasted and consequently the armed personnel had fired towards the hilltop. It has also been alleged that several of the police personnel had suffered injuries on account of the blasts. The said police personnel were rescued and admitted to the hospital.
-2-Based on the aforesaid allegation Toklo P. S. Case No. 09 of 2021 was instituted. Subsequently the NIA had taken over the investigation of the case which was reregistered as RC - 02/2021/NIA/RNC under Sections 147, 148, 149, 120B, 121, 121A, 307, 302, 333 and 353 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 3/ 4 of the Explosive Substances Act, Section 17 of CLA Act and Sections 16, 20, 38 and 39 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.
It has been submitted by Mr. Sarkhel, learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the appellant was not named in the First Information Report but subsequently his name has transpired on the confessional statement of co-accused Jaiki Paradhi @ Jaiki @ JK. It has been submitted that even a notice under Section 41A CrPC was issued to the appellant. So far as the CDR is concerned, learned counsel submits that the interconnectivity chart which has been shown in the supplementary charge-sheet clearly indicates that the persons with whom the appellant had conversed were not made an accused in the case registered by the NIA. Learned counsel further adds that apart from the confessional statement of co-accused Jaiki Paradhi @ Jaiki @ JK the other incriminating factor according to the NIA regarding the involvement of the appellant in the commission of the offence is the fact that the appellant runs a firecracker business but at the same time the appellant is a licensee also. Learned counsel, therefore, submits that on account of lack of evidence collected by NIA against the appellant the embargo under Section 43D(4) of UA(P) Act would not apply and the appellant deserves to be granted anticipatory bail.
At this Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned Spl.P.P. for the N.I.A. has submitted that the investigation is in progress against the appellant and the supplementary charge-sheet has been submitted against two accused persons. It has further been submitted that despite issuance of notice under Section 41A CrPC, the appellant did not co-operate in the investigation and he did not appear before the investigating agency. Learned counsel further submits that co-accused Jaiki Paradhi @ Jaiki -3- @ JK who has been arrayed as A-12 in the supplementary charge-sheet had confessed about the appellant supplying potash and since the appellant has firecracker business and potash being one of the ingredients, the complicity of the appellant, therefore, appears to be palpable.
We have considered the rival submissions and have also perused the various affidavits including the supplementary charge-sheet brought on record in the counter affidavit filed by the N.I.A. On perusal of the charge-sheet, it appears that A - 12 has given a detailed description about the activities of the terrorist and has also taken the name of the appellant who used to supply Potash to the terrorist organization which was one of the ingredients for making improvised explosive devices and the blast of which had led to injuries to several police personnel. In fact, it has been disclosed that 700 kg. of Potash had been procured on multiple occasions by A- 11 and A - 7 and the appellant has been specified as one of the persons who was involved in supply of Potash and the connectivity with respect to the supply of potash as disclosed by A - 12 can be easily gauged from the fact that the appellant is a dealer in firecracker and his license was also seized by NIA during a raid conducted in his house.
In the facts and circumstance enumerated above Section 43 (D)4 UA(P) Act clearly operates and in such view, we do not find any reason to interfere in the impugned order 08.06.2022 passed by Sri Madhuresh Kumar Verma, learned AJC XVI cum Spl. Judge, NIA, Ranchi in A.B.P. No. 897 of 2022 and, accordingly, this appeal stands dismissed.
(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.) (Ambuj Nath, J.) Umesh/-