Jharkhand High Court
Amit Kumar @ Amit Jaiswal @ Amit Kumar ... vs Union Of India Through National ... on 5 March, 2025
Author: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay, Ambuj Nath
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1778 of 2023
Amit Kumar @ Amit Jaiswal @ Amit Kumar Jaiswal, son of Mohan Bhagat @
Mohan Jayswal, resident of Hill Chowk, Torpa, P.O. & P.S. Torpa, District
Torpa
... Appellant
Versus
Union of India through National Investigation Agency ... Respondent
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH For the Appellant : Mr. Amlan Palit, Advocate For the NIA : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Spl.P.P.
---
Order No. 05 Dated 05th March, 2024 Heard Mr. Amlan Palit, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned Spl.P.P. This appeal is directed against the order dated 14.07.2023 passed by Sri Madhuresh Kumar Verma, by learned Additional Judicial Commissioner- XVI-cum-Special Judge, NIA, Ranchi in Misc. Criminal Application No. 1627 of 2023 in connection with Special (NIA) Case No. 2/2018 corresponding to RC-02/2018/NIA/DLI arising out of Bero P.S. Case No. 67 of 2016, whereby and whereunder, the prayer for bail of the appellant has been rejected.
The prosecution case arises out of a written report of Bindeshwari Das, Officer-in-Charge of Bero P.S. to the effect that a secret information was received on 10.11.2016 that the supremo of PLFI for the purpose of depositing his ill-gotten money of proceeds of crime realized as extortion had sent it through his associates for depositing in the Bank account for converting into white through a Safari vehicle bearing registration no. JH01Y-2898 to SBI, Bero Branch. After making a station diary entry and on the basis of the directives of the superior authorities the informant along with other Police personnel went to SBI, Bero Branch for verification of the said information. It is alleged that at about 3:15P.M. the informant and his associates waited in ambush and in the meantime having seen the Police party 3-4 persons attempted to flee away and while one of the persons was apprehended from the campus of the Bank three other persons were apprehended while boarding on the Safari vehicle bearing registration no. JH01Y2898. On query
1|Page the apprehended accused persons disclosed their name as Binod Kumar, Chandra Shekhar Kumar, Nand Kishore Mahto and Mohan Kumar. A search was conducted in presence of independent witnesses and one bag having 16 bundles of currency note of Rs. 1,000/- total amounting to Rs. 16,00,000/- was recovered from the possession of Binod Kumar and a mobile phone was also recovered from him. It has been alleged that an amount of Rs. 38,000/- was recovered from the possession of co-accused Chandra Shekhar Kumar along with deposit slips of various datesand one deposit slip of Rs. 16,00,000/- along with two mobile phones. It has also been alleged that total currency of Rs. 9,00,000/- was recovered from the possession of co-accused Nand Kishore Mahto and two mobile phones were recovered from Mohan Kumar @ Rajesh Kumar. None of the apprehended accused persons could show any documents with respect to the recovered currency notes and co-accused Binod Kumar had confessed that PLFI Supremo Dinesh Gope had instructed him over mobile to deposit the extorted amount of Rs. 25,38,000/- in the name of the Petrol Pump of co-accused Chandra Shekhar Kumar. All the articles were seized in presence of independent witnesses and a seizure list was also prepared.
Based on the aforesaid allegations Bero P.S. Case No. 67/2016 was instituted for the offences punishable u/s 212, 213, 414, 34 of the I.P.C., Section 13, 17, 40 of the UA(P) Act, 1967 and Section 17(ii) of the CLA Act. On completion of investigation charge-sheet was submitted against Vinod Kumar @ Binod Kumar, Chandra Shekhar Kumar, Nand Kishore Mahto and Mohan Kumar @ Rajesh Kumar for the offences punishable u/s 212, 213, 414 and 34 of the I.P.C., Section 13, 17 and 40 of the UA(P) Act, 1967 and Section 17(ii) of the CLA Act.
Consequent to the order of the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs vide Order No. 11011/51/2017-IS, IV dated 16.01.2018, the National Investigation Agency had taken over the investigation of the case and consequently the First Information Report was re-registered as RC- 02/2018/NIA/DLI. In course of investigation a supplementary change-sheet
2|Page was submitted by the NIA, against several accused persons including the appellant.
It has been submitted by Mr. Amlan Palit, learned counsel for the appellant that there is no evidence on record to suggest that the extortion money was collected by the appellant in conspiracy with the other accused persons in order to channelize it through legitimate means. No incriminating article has been recovered from the appellant. The appellant is in custody since 02.03.2020 and several co-accused persons similarly situated have been granted bail by this Court.
Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned Spl.P.P. (NIA) has submitted that the investigation has revealed modus operandi of the appellant who was working for PLFI Supremo Dinesh Gope on whose direction he used to deposit the levy amount in the account of Hira Devi @ Anita Devi, Dipak Mazumdar, Sanjay Mazumdar and Nasim Khan by utilizing the Pragya Kendra Operatives. This act of the appellant would indicate about his involvement in terror funding.
The prayer for bail of the appellant was earlier rejected in Criminal Appeal (DB ) No. 55 of 2021 vide order dated 13.02.2023.
The appellant has been arrayed A-15 in the Second Supplementary Charge-Sheet and the role and activities attributed to the appellant have been depicted in Para-17.19 of the said charge sheet which reads as under:
"17.19 Offences established against accused Amit Kumar @ Amit Jaiswal @ Amit Kumar Jaiswal ( A-16): It is established that A-16 being an associate of PLFI, is well acquainted with the facts that A-6 is a terrorist and chief of PLFI and collects/raise levy through extortion. A- 16 has criminally conspired with the members/associates of PLFI, an Unlawful Association and terrorist gang prescribed by the State of Jharkhand, namely A-6, A-13 & A-14 & A15. A-16, on the directions of A-6, used to collect/extort levy from the contractors and other businessmen engaged in development projects. On direction of A-6, A- 16 along with A-15 used to transfer/deposit levy amount, received from A-6, in the accounts of A-14 (Allahabad Bank A/c No.
3|Page 50484783145), Dipak Majumdar( UBI A.c No. 1401010068217), Sandhya Majumdar(Bandhan Bank A/c No.50170016481037) and Nasir Ahmad Khan(Federal Bank A/c No. 11570200066404) through various banking channels by using Pragya Kendra Operatives. Investigation has also revealed that within a span of 11 months, A-16 along with A-15 had transferred/deposited approx.. Rs.15,75,000/- which was either derived or obtained from A-6 or levy collected directly from contractors and other businessmen. Therefore, A-16 was instrumental in channelizing the levy amount into legitimate means by depositing/transferring the same in the bank accounts of A-14 and her associates. A-16, with the association of A-6, A-13, A-14 and A-15, was deeply involved in the larger conspiracy and in the commission of the instant crime and was channelizing the extorted amount as per the larger conspiracy of A-6. Thereby, Amit Kumar @ Amit Jaiswal @ Amit Kumar Jaiswal ( A-16) committed offences under sections 120B r/w 386 of the IPC, sections 17, 18 & 21 of the UA(P) Act 1967 and sections 17(i),
(ii) of the CLA Act, 1908"
The findings therefore recorded above would indicate that the appellant was instrumental in channelizing the ill-gotten money through various sources.
In the case of Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb reported in (2021) 3 SCC 713 it has been held as follows:-
17. It is thus clear to us that the presence of statutory restrictions like Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA per se does not oust the ability of the constitutional courts to grant bail on grounds of violation of Part III of the Constitution. Indeed, both the restrictions under a statute as well as the powers exercisable under constitutional jurisdiction can be well harmonised.
Whereas at commencement of proceedings, the courts are expected to appreciate the legislative policy against grant of bail but the rigours of such provisions will melt down where there is no likelihood of trial being completed within a reasonable time
4|Page and the period of incarceration already undergone has exceeded a substantial part of the prescribed sentence. Such an approach would safeguard against the possibility of provisions like Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA being used as the sole metric for denial of bail or for wholesale breach of constitutional right to speedy trial. The judgment of Union of India versus K.A. Najeeb (supra) has been followed in the case of Ashim @ Asim Kumar Haranath Bhattacharya @ Asim Harinath Bhattacharya @ Aseem Kumar Bhattacharya versus National Investigation Agency reported in (2022) 1 SCC 695, wherein it has been held as follows:
"9. We have to balance the nature of crime in reference to which the appellant is facing a trial. At the same time, the period of incarceration which has been suffered and the likely period within which the trial can be expected to be completed, as is informed to this Court that the statement of PW 1/de facto complainant has still not been completed and there are 298 prosecution witnesses in the calendar of witness although the respondent has stated in its counter-affidavit that it may examine only 100 to 105 witnesses but indeed may take its own time to conclude the trial. This fact certainly cannot be ignored that the appellant is in custody since 6-7- 2012 and has completed nine- and-half years of incarceration as an undertrial prisoner10. This Court has consistently observed in its numerous judgments that the liberty guaranteed in Part III of the Constitution would cover within its protective ambit not only due procedure and fairness but also access to justice and a speedy trial is imperative and the undertrials cannot indefinitely be detained pending trial. Once it is obvious that a timely trial would not be possible and the accused has suffered incarceration for a significant period of time, the courts would ordinarily be obligated to enlarge him on bail. 11. Deprivation of personal liberty without ensuring speedy trial is not consistent with Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
5|Page While deprivation of personal liberty for some period may not be avoidable, period of deprivation pending trial/appeal cannot be unduly long. At the same time, timely delivery of justice is part of human rights and denial of speedy justice is a threat to public confidence in the administration of justice."
One of the co-accused Jitendra Kumar has been granted bail by this Court in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 514 of 2020. Another co-accused involved in channelizing the extorted money, namely, Chandra Shekhar Singh has been granted bail by this Court in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 520 of 2020. One of the co-accused Navinbhai Jayantibhai Patel has been granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s) 16179/2024 vide order dated 03.02.2025. The appellant has remained in custody since 31.05.2019.
Though we are aware of the fact that the trial is at the fag end, but regarding being had to the period of incarceration of the appellant and the fact that several co-accused persons have been granted bail, we while setting aside the order dated 14.07.2023 passed by Sri Madhuresh Kumar Verma, by learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-XVI-cum-Special Judge, NIA, Ranchi in Misc. Criminal Application No. 1627 of 2023 direct that the appellant be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) with two sureties of the like mount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-XVI-cum-Special Judge, NIA, Ranchi in connection with Special (NIA) Case No. 2/2018 corresponding to RC-02/2018/NIA/DLI arising out of Bero P.S. Case No. 67 of 2016, subject to the condition that that the appellant shall remain physically present before the learned trial court on each and every date till the conclusion of the trial.
This appeal is allowed. Pending I.A., if any, stands closed.
(RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.) (AMBUJ NATH, J.) MK
6|Page