Allowed

Urmila Trivedi v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC17 Jan 2024Cr.A(DB)/1330/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Division Bench allowed the criminal appeal against the rejection of an anticipatory bail petition under the UAPA and NIA Act, quashing the impugned order and directing the primary court to grant bail upon surrender within 10 days.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 11.07.2023 rejecting the anticipatory bail was quashed; the appellant is directed to surrender within 10 days and be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 25,000 with two sure

Urmila Trivedi Vs the State of Jharkhand — Bail and Remand | Jharkhand HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1330 of 2023

¶3

---------

¶4

Urmila Trivedi, aged about 45 years, wife of Bachan Kumar Trivedi, resident of, New Barganda, P.O. Barganda, P.S. Giridih(T), DistrictGiridih,(Jharkhand) … … Appellant

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Jharkhand ….Respondent

¶7

---------

¶8

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

¶9

---------- For the Appellant : Mr. Jitendra Shankar Singh, Advocate Mr. Suraj Verma, Advocate For the Resp. State : Mr. Satish Prasad, A.P.P. ----------- 07/Dated: 17^th January, 2024

¶10

The instant criminal appeal has been filed under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 against the order dated 11.07.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, at Giridih in Anticipatory Bail Petition No. 1144 of 2023, whereby and whereunder the prayer for prearrest bail in connection with Madhuban P.S. Case No.04 of 2018 corresponding to G.R. No.489 of 2018 registered under Section 17 of C.L.A. Act and Sections 13, 16, 17, 19, 20 and 21 of U.A.P. Act, has been rejected.

¶11

It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that as per the allegations levelled against the appellant in the FIR, the main allegation is that she had purchased the landed property having Holding No.193 on the proceed of the crime which has been given by one of the members, namely, Manoj Choudhary, who happens to be the member of the banned Organization in favour of her husband namely Bachan Kumar Trivedi.

¶12

It has been contended that since the aforesaid property is the proceeds of crime as such the case has been instituted against the appellant along with others under the various sections of UAP Act including Section 17 thereof.

¶13

The submission has been made that the aforesaid allegations are absolutely incorrect in view of the fact that the appellant has purchased the said property by virtue of registered sale deed and as per the recital contained therein, the property was originally in the name of one Bishnu Chandra Dutta and the said piece of land subsequently has been transferred in favour of Sushma Singh. The said Sushma Singh being fifth purchaser of the said

¶14

¶15

property and she subsequently has transferred the same by virtue of registered sale deed in favor of the appellant which is evident from the deed or registration as appended as Annexure-11 of the supplementary affidavit.

¶16

It is further contended that the main allegation of having friendship with Manoj Choudhary, who happens to be member of banned Organization visà-vis Bacchan Kumar Trivedi who has been directed to be released on prearrest bail vide order dated 17.01.2023 passed by the learned Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No.1119 of 2022.

¶17

Submissions has been made that since there is no attributability regarding the ingredients involved under UAP Act, particularly the purchase of the property said to be purchased from the proceed of crime as also there is no material to connect the connectivity of the appellant so as to come to the prima facie conclusion that the appellant is having direct or indirect involvement in the terror funding as per the ingredient available under Section 17 of UAPA Act.

¶18

Learned counsel for the appellant based upon the impugned order has submitted that the learned trial court ought to have taken into consideration this fact but without appreciating the same, the impugned order has been passed, hence, the instant appeal.

¶19

While on the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for State of Jharkhand based upon the material collected in course of investigation as available in the case diary and the counter affidavit which contains the averments on the basis of the materials collected in the case diary submitting at para 51 and 52 of the case diary, wherein according to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for State of Jharkhand, it has been mentioned that the property in question has been found to be purchased from the proceeds of the crime, therefore, due to the specific allegation and consideration of the facts, the prayer for pre-arrest bail has been rejected by the learned court, hence, it cannot be said to suffer from error.

¶20

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the findings recorded by learned court while considering the prayer for pre-arrest bail as available in the impugned order dated 11.07.2023 as also the case diary and the averments made in the counter affidavit.

¶21

¶22

10.The allegations against the appellant as available from paras 51 and 52 of the case diary and the emphasis has been given by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Jharkhand that the property in question has been purchased or constructed from the proceeds of the crime.

¶23

11.The aforesaid allegation although in the said paragraphs have been alleged but we have not found any material to connect the said allegation to substantiate that the said property or the construction over the said land in question is the proceeds of crime. Only the allegation as has been argued on behalf of the learned additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Jharkhand is that the husband of the appellant, namely, Bachan Kumar Trivedi has relationship with one Manoj Choudhary who happens to be the member of the banned Organization but even then we do not find any material to establish the said facts.

¶24

12.Moreover, the husband of the appellant has also been directed to be released on pre arrest bail vide order dated 17.01.2023 passed by learned Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No.1119 of 2022.

¶25

13.This Court, after having heard the learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that the identically placed co-accused person, namely, Bachan Kumar Trivedi, the appellant of Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1119 of 2022 has been directed to be released on pre-arrest bail vide order dated 17.01.2023, therefore, there is no reason to take distinct view with the case of the appellant.

¶26

14.Accordingly, the order dated 11.07.2023 passed in A.B.P. Case No.1144 of 2023 in connection with Madhuban P.S. Case No. 04 of 2018, is hereby quashed and set aside.

¶27

15.In view thereof, the instant appeal stands allowed.

¶28

16.On consideration of the aforesaid facts, this Court is inclined to extend the privilege of pre-arrest bail to the appellant. The appellant, named above, accordingly, is directed to surrender before the learned court below within 10 days and on his surrender, he shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of the learned J.M.1^st Class, at

¶29

¶30

Giridih in connection with Madhuban P.S. Case No.04 of 2018, subject to the condition as follows:

¶31

(i) that the appellant shall co-operate in the investigation and shall appear before the investigation agency and the learned trial court, as and when required;

¶32

(ii) that the appellant shall not, directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or tamper with the evidence;

¶33

(iii) that the appellant shall surrender his passport, if any, to the concerned trial Court forthwith. Her passport will remain in custody of the concerned trial Court;

¶34

(iv) that the appellant shall not leave India during the pendency of trial without prior permission from the concerned trial Court;

¶35

(v) that in default of any of the conditions mentioned above, the investigating officer shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the appellant;

¶36

17.In view thereof, the instant appeal stands disposed of.

¶37

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)

¶38

(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)

¶39

pappu /-

Urmila Trivedi v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Urmila Trivedi v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Charitar Yadav Alias Suraj Yadav Alias Ramashish Yadav Alias Angad Jee Alias Chalitar Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Charitar Yadav Alias Ramashish Yadav Alias Chalitar Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Saddam Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Pintu Paswan Alias Sangam Paswan Alias Sarvesh Jee Alias Sudhansu Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ramkeshwar Oraon Alias Ram Kishor Oraon Vs the State of Jharkhand

Pawan Kumar Alias Pawan Mehta Vs the State of Jharkhand