Bindeshwar Ganjhu Alias Bindu Ganjhu Vs Union of India through Nia

2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 03.01.2024 passed in Misc. Criminal Application No. 2958 of 2023 in connection with RC 06/2018/NIA/DLI arising out of Special (NIA) Case No. 03/2018 by Sri Madhuresh Kumar Verma, learned A.J.C.XVI-cum-Special Judge, NIA, Ranchi whereby and whereunder the prayer for bail of the appellant has been rejected.

¶17

3. A written report was submitted by Ramdhari Singh, Sub Inspector of Police, posted at Simaria P.S. to the effect that on 10.01.2016 a secret information was received by the Superintendent of Police that in Amrapali Magadh Coal area in Tandwa some local people have formed an association which is related to the banned extremist outfit TPC. The members of such association were extracting levy from coal traders and DO holders by creating fear in the name of the extremists of TPC, namely Gopal Singh Bhokta @ Brijesh Ganjhu, Mukesh Ganjhu, Kohram Ji, Akraman Ji @ Ravindra Ganjhu, Anischay Ganjhu, Bhikan Ganjhu, Deepu Singh @ Bhikan and Bindu Ghanju. It was also alleged that if any businessmen hesitate to pay levy, they are threatened by members of such organization and are also subjected to hardships.

¶18

In order to verify the truthfulness or otherwise of such information a raiding party was constituted on the orders of Superintendent of

¶19

-2-

¶20

Police, Chatra. A raid was conducted in the house of the President of the Association – Binod Kumar Ganjhu and from under his bed as well as from an almirah Rs. 91,75,890/- was recovered. No satisfactory explanation could be submitted by Binod Kumar Ganjhu with respect to the recovery of such a huge amount of cash. From the house of Binod Kumar Ganjhu two persons were also apprehended who disclosed their names as Birbal Ganjhu and Munesh Ganjhu and on search of their persons a loaded Mauser pistol was recovered from the possession of Birbal Ganjhu while from the possession of Munesh Ganjhu a country made pistol and two live cartridges were recovered. Both had confessed of being associated with TPC organization. Binod Ganjhu had disclosed that he is the President of “Magadh Sanchalan Samittee” and the levy collected is sent to Gopal Singh Bhogta @ Brijesh Ganjhu and thereafter it is distributed between Mukesh Ganjhu, Kohramji, Akramanji @ Ravindra Ganjhu, Anischyaji, Bhikan Ganjhu and Deepu Singh @ Bhikan. He had further disclosed that Bindu Ganjhu is a member of “Amrapali Sanchalan Samittee” who collects levy on behalf of TPC and since he is at present in Jail the collection of levy is being done by Pradeep Ram. On such information a raid was conducted in the house of Pradeep Ram and from under his bed as well as from an almirah Rs. 57,57,710/- in cash was recovered. No satisfactory explanation could be given by Pradeep Ram with respect to the cash recovered.

¶21

4. Based on the aforesaid allegations Tandwa P.S. Case No. 02 of 2016 was instituted for the offences under Sections 414, 384, 386, 387, 120B of the I.P.C., Section 25(1-b)(a), 26/35 of the Arms Act and Section 17 (1)(2) of Criminal Law Amendment Act against Binod Kumar Ganjhu, Munesh Ganjhu, Pradeep Ram, Birbal Ganjhu, Gopal Singh Bhokta @ Brijesh Ganjhu, Mukesh Ganjhu, Kohramji, Akramanji @ Ravindra Ganjhu, Anischya Ganjhu, Deepu Singh @ Bhikan, Bindu Ganjhu @ Bindeshwar Ganjhu and Bhikan Ganjhu.

¶22

On 10.03.2016 charge sheet was submitted against the other accused persons before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chatra. On 09.04.2017, on the prayer made by the Investigating

¶23

-3-

¶24

Officer offences under Sections 16, 17, 20 and 23 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘UAP Act’ for the sake of brevity) were added. Since the offences involved a scheduled offence, in exercise of powers conferred u/s 6(3) read with Section 8 of the National Investigation Agency, Act 2008, the Central Government vide order dated 13.02.2018 had directed the National Investigation Agency to take up the investigation of the case consequent to which Tandwa P.S. Case No. 02 of 2016 was reregistered as NIA Case No. RC-06/2018/NIA/DLI.

¶25

The first supplementary charge sheet bearing Charge Sheet No. 32/2018 was filed by the NIA on 21.12.2018. 5. Submission has been advanced by Mr. Balaji Srinivasan, learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is a land loser under the Relief and Rehabilitation Scheme of CCL and carries on a legitimate business of transport. It has been submitted that the companies who got mining leases were finding it difficult to extract the minerals and run their business which resulted in their approaching the villagers and a committee was constituted in the name of Shanti Sah Sanchalan Samiti . The payment of money for business purpose does not amount to terror funding and meeting with members of the terrorist organization does not establish a web of conspiracy hatched by the appellant. Mr. Srinivasan has further submitted that the appellant is in custody since 18.08.2018. The trial has till date not concluded and several of the co-accused have been granted bail by this Court. In fact, the appellant has been granted bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ECIR/RNSZO/02/2016 considering the fact that the appellant is in custody for six and a half years in the predicate offence which is the case from which the present appeal arises. 6. Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned Special P.P. (NIA) has submitted that the prayer for bail of the appellant was earlier rejected in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 29 of 2021 against which the appellant had moved the Hon’ble Supreme Court which, however, was disposed of with a liberty to the appellant to renew his prayer for bail if the trial is not concluded within one year. The present application for grant of bail is not maintainable as there is no

¶26

-4-

¶27

changed circumstance to initiate a fresh consideration. It has been submitted that the appellant, as the investigation suggests, is an active member of the terrorist organization and which fact has already been considered by this Court. According to Mr. Das, the trial is on the verge of conclusion and, therefore, the present appeal is liable to be dismissed.

¶28

7. The appellant has been arrayed as (A-5) in the supplementary charge sheet and the role and activities of the appellant has been demarcated in para 17.16 of the said charge sheet which reads as follows:

¶29

“17.16 Role and activities of / offences established against Bindu Ganjhu (A-5): Therefore, as per the averments made hereinabove / in the pre-paragraphs, it is established that he is member of Shanti Sah Sanchalan Samiti of Honhe village in Amrapali coal mine area. He along with A-11 on the direction of A-14 used to collect levy from Transporters and DO holders in Amrapali coalmine area. He also colluded with A-7 to resolve issues related to levy. He also acquired proceeds of terrorism, i.e., movable properties acquired through illegitimate sources. He was also closely associated with A-9 and he (A-5) was paying the levy amount to CCL, Village Committee, TPC operatives and others also on behalf of A- 9. He, being member of terrorist gang, was closely associated with top leaders of the gang and used to extort levy from coal transporters / contractors and raised funds for the terrorist gang and acquired Proceeds of Terrorism. Therefore, it is established that Bindu Ganjhu (A-5), by becoming member of terrorist gang/ unlawful association of TPC, proscribed by Government of Jharkhand,

¶30

-5-

¶31

assisted in the operations/ management of TPC in criminal conspiracy with members of the terrorist gang including A-4, A-9, A-11, A- 14, A-16 with intent to aid the above said terrorist gang collected funds from illegitimate sources through extortion from the contractors/ coal traders/ Coal Transporters and acquired proceeds of terrorism in the form of movable/ immovable properties through the terrorist fund and thereby conspired with coaccused for terrorist act. Thereby accused Bindu Ganjhu (A-5) committed offences under sections 120B r/w 387, 384, 386, 414 of the IPC, sections 17, 18, 20 and 21 of the UA(P) Act, section 17 of the CLA Act, 1908.

¶32

8. The appellant had earlier moved for grant of bail in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 29 of 2021 which was dismissed vide order dated 04.08.2022. The appellant had moved the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 7609/2022 which was disposed of on 28.11.2022 with a direction to the learned trial court to conclude the trial within a period of one year. An extension for conclusion of trial was sought for by the learned trial court vide Misc. Application No. 2653/2023 and vide order dated 12.01.2024, the time stipulated had been extended by one year. We have been informed that the trial has not yet been concluded.

¶33

9. In the case of Union of India versus K.A. Najeeb, reported in (2021) 3 SCC 713 , it has been held as follows:

¶34

“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

¶35

-6-

¶36

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 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. ”

¶37

10. In Vinod Kumar Ganjhu @ Binod Ganjhu @ Binod Kumar Ganjhu v. State through NIA, Ranchi in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1019 of 2018 , while granting bail, this Court had also taken into consideration the period of custody of the appellant in the following manner:

¶38

“16. The appellant is in custody since 30.06.2018 and is on the verge of completion of 6 years in custody. The long incarceration of the appellant would also be a dominant feature while considering grant of bail apart from the fact that the trial has not yet been concluded which have been taken into consideration in the case of “Union of India Vs. K. A. Najeeb” (supra) noted above. ”

¶39

11. Another of the co-accused, namely, Birbal Ganjhu has been granted bail by this Court in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 159 of 2023 considering the period of custody undergone by the said appellant. 12. As is evident, the appellant is in custody since 18.08.2018, i.e., more than six and half years. Such long incarceration would be a predominant factor in granting bail to the appellant.

¶40

13. We, therefore, on the basis of what has been discussed above, set aside the order dated 03.01.2024 passed in Misc. Criminal Application No. 2958 of 2023 passed in connection with RC

¶41

-7-

¶42

06/2018/NIA/DLI arising out of Special (NIA) Case No. 03/2018 and direct that the appellant shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- only with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned A.J.C.-XVI-cum-Special Judge, N.I.A., Ranchi in connection with RC 06/2018/NIA/DLI arising out of Special (N.I.A) No. 03/2018 subject to the condition that he shall remain physically present before the learned trial court on each and every date till the conclusion of the trial.

¶43

14. This appeal stands allowed .

¶44

(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)

¶45

(Ambuj Nath, J.)

¶46

Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated the …..^th Day of March, 2025 Preet/N.A.F.R.

Bindeshwar Ganjhu Alias Bindu Ganjhu v. Union of India through Nia

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bindeshwar Ganjhu Alias Bindu Ganjhu v. Union of India through Nia

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pankaj Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

MD Sohrab Vs the State of Jharkhand

Urmila Hansda Vs the State of Jharkhand

Arun Gope Vs Union of India through Nia

Lalita Devi Vs the Union of India through National Investigating Agency

Munesh Ganjhu Vs Union of India through National Investigating Agency