Munesh Ganjhu Vs Union of India through National Investigating Agency

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 555 of 2024

……….. Munesh Ganjhu, S/o Nirmal Ganjhu, R/o Village- Gonda Raham, P.O. & P.S.- Piparwar, District- Chatra ... … Appellant Versus Union of India, through National Investigating Agency, represented by Superintendent of Police N.I.A. having its office at N.I.A. Camp Office, Quarter No. 305, Sector-II, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Dhurwa, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand- 834002

¶3

... … Respondent

¶4

………..

¶5

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

¶6

……….. For the Appellant : Mr. Balaji Shrinivasan, Advocate Mr. Niranjan Kumar, Advocate

¶7

For the Respondent-NIA : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Spl. P.P.

¶8

………..

¶9

C.A.V. on 15/10/2024 Pronounced on 05/03/2025 Per Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.

¶10

Heard Mr. Balaji Shrinivasan, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned Special P.P. for the respondent-NIA, Ranchi.

¶11

2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 24.02.2024 passed in Misc. Criminal Application No. 3184/2023, in connection with Special (NIA) Case No. 03/2018, corresponding to R.C. Case No. 06/2018/NIA/DLI, arising out of Tandwa P.S. Case No. 02/2016 by Sri Madhuresh Kumar Verma, learned AJC-XVI-cum-Special Judge, NIA, Ranchi, whereby and whereunder, the prayer for bail of the appellant has been rejected.

¶12

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

¶13

-1-

¶14

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 hesitates to pay levy, they are threatened by members of such organization and are also subjected to hardships. In order to verify the truthfulness or otherwise of such information a raiding party was constituted on the orders of the Superintendent of 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

¶15

-2-

¶16

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.

¶17

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.

¶18

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 Officer offences under Sections 16, 17, 20 and 23 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (herein after 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.

¶19

The first supplementary charge sheet bearing Charge Sheet No. 32/2018 was filed by the NIA on 21.12.2018.

¶20

5. It has been submitted by Mr. Balaji Shrinivasan, learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is a coal trader and a social activist and he has been implicated primarily on account of the fact that he was present in the house of coaccused Binod Ganjhu who has subsequently been granted bail

¶21

-3-

¶22

by this Court. The Investigating Agency has failed to produce any documentary evidence in order to prove that the appellant is a member of the terrorist organization. It has also been submitted that the appellant was in judicial custody from 12.01.2016 till 11.11.2016 and was arrested by the N.I.A. on 29.06.2018 which would indicate that the appellant is in custody for more than six and a half years. 6. Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned Special P.P. for the NIA has opposed the prayer for bail of the appellant while submitting that the appellant has been found to be an active member of a terrorist organization and was closely associated with the top leaders of the said organization. It has been submitted that the trial is its fag end and no new ground has been projected by the appellant for reconsideration of his prayer for bail.

¶23

7. The appellant has been arrayed as A-2 in the first supplementary charge-sheet and the role and activities attributed to the appellant has been enumerated in para 17.13 of the said charge-sheet which reads as follows:

¶24

“17.13 Role and activities of / offences established against Munesh Ganjhu (A-2) : Therefore, as per the averments made hereinabove / in the pre-paragraphs, it is established that he is armed cadre of TPC. 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. He was arrested on 11.01.2016 with fire arms and ammunitions. Therefore, it is established that Munesh Ganjhu (A-2), by becoming member of terrorist gang / unlawful association TPC, proscribed by Government of Jharkhand, assisted in the operations / management of TPC in criminal conspiracy with members of the terrorist gang including A-1, A-3, A-4, A-14 with intent to aid the above said terrorist gang collected funds from illegitimate sources through extortion from the contractors / coal traders / Coal Transporters and further was in unauthorized possession of fire arms and ammunition and conspired with co-accused for terrorist act. Thereby accused Munesh Ganjhu (A-2)

¶25

-4-

¶26

committed offences under sections 120B r/w 387, 384, 386, 414 of the IPC, sections 17, 18, and 20 of the UA(P) Act, 25(1B)a, 26 and 35 of the Arms Act, section 17 of the CLA Act, 1908. ”

¶27

8. The appellant had moved for grant of bail in Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 558 of 2019 which was dismissed vide order dated 12.09.2022 with a direction to the learned trial court to conclude the trial within a period of one year. One of the coaccused Bindeshwar Ganjhu @ Bindu Ganju on his rejection of bail by this Court 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. The 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 has been extended by one year. We have been informed that the trial has not been concluded.

¶28

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

¶29

“ 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 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. ”

¶30

-5-

¶31

10. In “ Vinod Kumar Ganjhu @ Binod Ganjhu @ Binod Kumar Ganjhu versus State through National Investigation Agency, Ranchi ” in Criminal Appeal (D.B.) 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:

¶32

“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. ”

¶33

11. Another of the co-accused namely, Birbal Ganjhu has been granted bail by this Court in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 159 of 2023 considering the period of custody undergone by the said accused.

¶34

12. As it is evident the appellant is in custody since 29.06.2018 i.e. six and a half years and such long incarceration would be a predominant feature in granting bail to the appellant. We, therefore, on the basis of what has been discussed above, set aside the order dated 24.02.2024 passed in Misc. Criminal Application No. 3184/2023, in connection with Special (NIA) Case No. 03/2018, corresponding to R.C. Case No. 06/2018/NIA/DLI, arising out of Tandwa P.S. Case No. 02/2016 by Sri Madhuresh Kumar Verma, learned AJC-XVI-cum-Special Judge, NIA, Ranchi and direct that the appellant be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned AJC-XVI-cum-Special Judge, NIA, Ranchi in connection with Special (NIA) Case No. 03/2018, corresponding to R.C. Case No. 06/2018/NIA/DLI, arising out of

¶35

-6-

¶36

Tandwa P.S. Case No. 02/2016, subject to the condition that the appellant shall remain physically present before the learned trial court on each and every date till the conclusion of the trial.

¶37

13. This appeal is allowed.

¶38

14. Pending I.A.s., if any, stands closed.

¶39

(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)

¶40

(Ambuj Nath, J.)

¶41

A. Sanga/-

¶42

-7-

Munesh Ganjhu v. Union of India through National Investigating Agency

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Munesh Ganjhu v. 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

Lalita Devi Vs the Union of India through National Investigating Agency