2021 (4) TMI 1318 - SC - Indian Laws

Seeking grant of Bail - allegation against the persons named in the FIR is that they were operatives/functionaries of a terrorist gang TPC and they were extorting levy from coal traders, transporters and contractors - Sections 414, 384, 386, 387, 120B Indian Penal Code, Sections 25(1B)(a)/ 26/35 of the Arms Act and Section 17(1)(2) of the CLA Act - HELD THAT - While considering the grant of bail Under Section 43D(5), it is the bounden duty of the Court to apply its mind to examine the entire material on record for the purpose of satisfying itself, whether a prima facie case is made out against the Accused or not. A close scrutiny of the material placed before the Court would clearly shows that the main accusation against the Appellant is that he paid levy/extortion amount to the terrorist organization. Payment of extortion money does not amount to terror funding. It is clear from the supplementary charge-sheet and the other material on record that other Accused who are members of the terrorist organization have been systematically collecting extortion amounts from businessmen in Amrapali and Magadh areas. The Appellant is carrying on transport business in the area of operation of the organization. It is alleged in the second supplementary charge-sheet that the Appellant paid money to the members of the TPC for smooth running of his business. Prima facie, it cannot be said that the Appellant conspired with the other members of the TPC and raised funds to promote the organization. It is not satisfying that a prima facie case has been made out against the Appellant relating to the offences alleged against him - these findings are restricted only for the purpose of grant of bail to the Appellant and the trial court shall not be influenced by these observations during trial. Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues involved:
Accused seeking bail for offences under IPC, UAPA, Arms Act, and CLA Act; Accusations of terror funding and criminal conspiracy; Rejection of bail by lower courts; Interpretation of Section 43-D(5) of UA(P) Act; Examination of evidence for prima facie case.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Accusations and Lower Court Decisions:
The Appellant faced charges under various sections of IPC, UAPA, Arms Act, and CLA Act related to terror funding and criminal activities. The bail application was initially dismissed by the Special Judge NIA at Ranchi, and the High Court upheld this decision. The appeal to the Supreme Court was made against these orders.

2. Background and Investigation:
The case originated from an FIR against individuals associated with a terrorist gang extorting money from coal traders. The Appellant, engaged in coal transportation, was accused of colluding with the gang and paying levies. Statements and charge-sheets highlighted his involvement in funding the organization.

3. Interpretation of Evidence:
The Appellant's statement, supplementary charge-sheets, and seized amount were crucial in determining his alleged role in terror funding. The prosecution argued that his financial support to the gang constituted an offence under UAPA. The High Court emphasized his interactions with the gang members and deemed it a case of terror funding.

4. Legal Interpretation of Section 43-D(5):
The Supreme Court referred to precedents and analyzed the requirements under Section 43-D(5) of the UA(P) Act. The Court stressed the need for a prima facie case to deny bail and discussed the difference in standards of proof compared to other special enactments.

5. Supreme Court Decision:
After thorough scrutiny of the evidence and contentions, the Supreme Court disagreed with the lower courts' findings. The Court found insufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case against the Appellant for the alleged offences. It clarified that the observations made were solely for the bail decision and should not influence the trial court proceedings.

6. Final Verdict:
In conclusion, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and directed the release of the Appellant on bail, subject to the satisfaction of the Special Court. The appeals were allowed based on the lack of evidence supporting the accusations of terror funding and conspiracy against the Appellant.

This detailed analysis outlines the legal journey of the case, focusing on the accusations, evidence, legal interpretations, and the final decision of the Supreme Court granting bail to the Appellant.