Arun Gope Vs Union of India through Nia

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 68 of 2024 Arun Gope, son of Mahabir Gope, resident of Chalangi, P.O. Govindpur, P.S. Lapung, District Ranchi ... Appellant Versus Union of India through NIA … Respondent

¶2

¶3

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH For the Appellant : Mr. Balaji Srinivasan, Advocate Mr. Niranjan Kumar, Advocate For the NIA : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Spl.P.P. Mr. Saurav Kumar, Advocate --- CAV Order

¶4

Order No. 07 Dated 05^th March, 2025

¶5

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

¶6

This appeal is directed against the order dated 12.01.2024 passed in Misc. Criminal Application No. 3195 of 2023 in connection with Special (NIA) Case No. 2/2018 corresponding to R.C. No. 02/2018/NIA/DLI arising out of Bero P.S. Case No. 67 of 2016 by Sri Madhuresh Kumar Verma, learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-XVI-cum-Special Judge, NIA, Ranchi, whereby and whereunder, the prayer for bail of the appellant has been rejected.

¶7

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 3:15 P.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

¶8

1 | P a g e

¶9

the campus of the Bank three other persons were apprehended while boarding on the Safari vehicle bearing registration no. JH01Y2898. On query 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 dates and 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.

¶10

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.

¶11

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-

¶12

2 | P a g e

¶13

02/2018/NIA/DLI. In course of investigation a supplementary change-sheet was submitted by the NIA, against several accused persons including the appellant.

¶14

It has been submitted by Mr. Balaji Srinivasan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant that there is no documentary proof in support of the allegation of channelizing of money and collection of levy amount being used for illegal purposes. The appellant has been saddled with the allegations primarily on account of the fact that he is the brother-in-law of the Supremo of PLFI. There is no substance in the allegation that the appellant either directly or indirectly indulged in extortion, collected levy or incorporated dubious companies. Mr. Srinivasan has submitted that the appellant is in custody since 31.05.2019 and some of the co-accused persons have been granted bail by this Court.

¶15

Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned Spl.P.P. (NIA) has submitted that the appellant used to collect/ receive extorted money from the operatives of PLFI and the amount less than Rs. 50,000/- was used to be deposited in the bank account of M/s. Palak Enterprises while the amount exceeding Rs. 50,000/would be handed over to the second wife of Dinesh Gope at Kolkata. The allegation against the appellant has substantially been proved by virtue of the oral and documentary evidence. The bail applications of the co-accused who are similarly situated as that of the appellant in channelizing ill-gotten money have been rejected by this Court in Criminal Appeal (DB ) No. 1026 of 2019, Criminal Appeal (DB ) No. 59 of 2021, Criminal Appeal (DB ) No. 556 of 2020 and Criminal Appeal (DB ) No. 55 of 2021.

¶16

The prayer for bail of the appellant was earlier rejected in Criminal Appeal (DB ) No. 544 of 2020 vide order dated 01.11.2022.

¶17

The appellant has been arrayed A-10 in the First Supplementary Charge-Sheet and his role and activities have been depicted at Para-17.20 of the same which reads as under:

¶18

17.20) Role of A-10:- It is established A-10 was well acquainted with the facts that Sumant Kumar (A-7) is a close associate of his brother-in-law (Jija, husband of his elder sister Shakuntala Kumari)

¶19

3 | P a g e

¶20

namely Dinesh Gope (A-6) and used to collect funds directly from Dinesh Gope (A-6). A-10, being brother-in-law of the absconding Dinesh Gope criminally conspired with A-6. A-7 and others and used to receive/collect the extorted money from operatives of PLFI including Sumant Kumar (A-7) and further deposited/sent in the accounts of/to Shakuntala Kumari, wife of Dinesh Gope. It has been established that, as per the directions, received telephonically from Sumant Kumar (A7) and Shakuntala Kumari, elder sister of the accused A-10, he used to collect amount less then Rs. 50, 000/- (Fifty thousand rupees) from A- 7, who-is director/partner in the dubious shell companies formed as per direction of A-6 with Shakuntala Kumari, wife of Dinesh Gope (A-6) and used to deposit the collected money in the account of Palak Enterprises at SBBJ branch, Pee Pee Compound, Main Road, Ranchi and the amount between Rs. 50,000/- (Fifty Thousand rupees) to Rs. 1,00,000/- (One Lakh rupees) used to be collected from Sumant Kumar (A-7) and the collected amount was taken by the A-10 to Kolkata where the collected amount was handed over to Shakantala Kumari. The A-10 always remained in touch with Dinesh Gope (A-6) and met him many times in the forest areas of Raniya, Garai and Torpa and took his directions in furtherance of PLFI activities.

¶21

The aforesaid would therefore indicate that the appellant was involved primarily in channelizing the ill-gotten money through various sources.

¶22

In the case of Union of India v. K.A. Nazeeb reported in (2021) 3 SCC 713 it has been held as follows:-

¶23

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

¶24

4 | P a g e

¶25

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.

¶26

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:

¶27

“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 nineand-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. While deprivation of personal liberty for some period may not be avoidable, period of deprivation pending trial/appeal

¶28

5 | P a g e

¶29

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.”

¶30

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.

¶31

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 12.01.2024 passed in Misc. Criminal Application No. 3195 of 2023 by Sri Madhuresh Kumar Verma, by learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-XVI-cum-Special Judge, NIA, Ranchi 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 R.C. No. 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.

¶32

This appeal is allowed. Pending I.A., if any, stands closed.

¶33

(RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.)

¶34

(AMBUJ NATH, J.)

¶35

MK

¶36

6 | P a g e

Arun Gope v. Union of India through Nia

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arun Gope 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

Bindeshwar Ganjhu Alias Bindu Ganjhu 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