Lalita Devi Vs the Union of India through National Investigating Agency

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 364 of 2024

Lalita Devi, wife of Chhotu Kherwar @ Sujit Kherwar @ Chhotu Ji @ Birju Singh @ Chhote Singh @ Brij Mohan Singh @ Birju Ganjhu @ Chhotu Da, resident of Village: Sikid, PO & PS: Herhanj, District: Latehar, Jharkhand ... Appellant

¶4

Versus

¶5

The Union of India through National Investigation Agency … Respondent

¶6

¶7

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH

¶8

For the Appellant : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Spl.P.P (NIA)

¶9

¶10

12/05.03.2025

¶11

Heard Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned Spl.P.P.

¶12

This appeal is directed against the order dated 31.01.2024 passed by Sri Madhuresh Kumar Verma, learned AJC-XVI-cum-Spl. Judge, NIA, Ranchi in Misc. Criminal Application No. 3097 of 2023 in connection with Special NIA Case No. 01 of 2018, corresponding to RC Case No. 01/2018 NIA/DLI, arising out of Balumath PS Case No. 161 of 2016, whereby and whereunder, the prayer for bail of the appellant has been rejected.

¶13

The self statement of SI Nand Kishore Prasad was registered on 21.12.2016 in the house of Chandan Kumar in which it has been alleged that a secret information was received that the owner of Sahara Bank namely Chandan Kumar is planning to deposit the money of Chhotu Kherwar who is a member of a terrorist organization. A station diary entry was made and after constituting a police party the team reached the premises of Sahara Bank situated at Balumath market. The manager of Sahara Bank namely Chandan Kumar was taken to the Police Station for questioning. In his confessional statement, Chandan Kumar had disclosed that he was working in the post of Manager of Sahara Bank for the last five years. About 10-15 days back Chhotu Kherwar of MCC had called him up for depositing Rs.15,00,000/- old currency notes. Chandan Kumar was thereafter given Rs. 15,00,000/- by Santosh Oraon. It has further been alleged that he took the cash and kept it in his house for 2-3 days. The Agents of Sahara Bank namely, Mahendra Saw, Binova Prasad Gupta, Birendra Kumar Sinha, Anil Oraon, Shankar Sao and Pradip Ganjhu were directed to deposit Rs.12,00,000/in their individual accounts. The Agents had accordingly deposited varous amount in their accounts. It has been alleged that Chandan Kumar had kept an

¶14

-2-

¶15

amount of Rs.3,00,000/- in his house. The amount of Rs.12,00,000/- was fixed deposited in the name of Lalita Devi wife of Chhotu Kherwar. In view of such revelations the house of Chandan Kumar was searched and from the almirah of his bed room Rs.3,00,100/- in cash of various denominations was recovered. On search of the premises of Sahara Bank 64 receipts bearing the signature of Chandan Kumar and in the name of Lalita Devi of Hamara India Credit Cooperative Society Limited were recovered. An Aadhar Card in the name of Lalita Devi was also seized. The accused Chandan Kumar was arrested by the Police.

¶16

It has been submitted by Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant has been implicated primarily on account of the fact that she is the wife of the main accused Chhotu Kherwar. No incriminating articles were recovered from the possession of the appellant and she is in judicial custody since 19.11.2019.

¶17

Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned Spl.P.P (NIA) has submitted that in course of investigation it has come to light that an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- which was an extorted money was deposited in Sahara India Credit Co-operative Society in a scheme in the name of the appellant and receipts were also issued. Submission has been advanced that the trial is at its fag end.

¶18

The appellant has been arrayed in the charge-sheet as A-5 and the role and activities of the appellant has been depicted in para 17.12 of charge-sheet which reads as follows:

¶19

“17.12 (i) Role of accused Lalita Devi (A-5): Investigation established that she, being wife of Chhotu Kherwar (A-2), with intent to support him (A-2) for furthering the activities of proscribed terrorist organization CPI(Maoist), A-5 criminally conspired with A-2, Santosh Oraon (A-3), Roshan Oraon (A-4) and Chandan Kumar (A-1) and others in collecting funds viz. extorted amount worth rupees 17,40,000/- (Seventeen Lakh Forty Thousand) pertaining to A-2 and got it deposited as fixed deposit in Sahara India Bank, Balumath and M/s Petron Minerals & Metal Ltd. in her name through A-1 and others”.

¶20

The appellant had moved this Court for grant of bail in Cr. Appeal (DB) No.459 of 2022 which however was dismissed vide order dated 14.02.2023 on the ground that a prima facie case is made out against the appellant in terms of Section 43D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. However, it seems that the appellant has remained in custody since 19.11.2019 i.e. five years and three months. In this context, we may make reference to the case of “ Union of India versus K.A. Najeeb” reported in (2021) 3 SCC 713 wherein it has been held as follows:

¶21

“ 17. It is thus clear to us that the presence of statutory restrictions like

¶22

-3-

¶23

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 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.”

¶24

As we have noted above, the appellant has remained in custody for five years and three months and on consideration of the same we while setting aside the order dated 31.01.2024 passed by Sri Madhuresh Kumar Verma, learned AJCXVI-cum-Spl. Judge, NIA, Ranchi in Misc. Criminal Application No. 3097 of 2023 in connection with Special NIA Case No. 01 of 2018, corresponding to RC Case No. 01/2018 NIA/DLI, arising out of Balumath PS Case No. 161 of 2016 direct that the appellant shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/(Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned AJC-XVI-cum-Spl. Judge, NIA, Ranchi in connection with Special NIA Case No. 01 of 2018, corresponding to RC Case No. 01/2018 NIA/DLI, arising out of Balumath PS Case No. 161 of 2016, subject to the condition that the appellant shall remain physically present on each and every date before the learned trial Court till the conclusion of trial.

¶25

This appeal is allowed.

¶26

Pending IA, if any, stands closed.

¶27

(RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.)

¶28

(AMBUJ NATH, J.)

¶29

S.B.

Lalita Devi v. the Union of India through National Investigating Agency

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lalita Devi v. the Union of India through National Investigating Agency

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

Bindeshwar Ganjhu Alias Bindu Ganjhu Vs Union of India through Nia

Arun Gope Vs Union of India through Nia

Munesh Ganjhu Vs Union of India through National Investigating Agency