2023 (8) TMI 1463 - HC - Indian Laws

Rejection of second bail application filed by the appellant under Section 439 Cr.P.C. - appellant was involved in the explosives or not - It is contended that incriminating no tower material was found in the mobile recovered from the appellant and the car location also did not connect with the other co-accused - HELD THAT - Looking to the fact that prima facie there is evidence against the accused; that he was earlier also arrested for the offence under UAPA Act in the year 2015; that there is disclosure statement of other co-accused with regard to his presence in the meetings; that he himself has given information under Section 27 of Evidence Act; that mobile phones have been recovered from the appellant which had connectivity with the other co-accused; that there is a specific bar under proviso to Section 43D(5) of UAPA Act, we are not inclined to entertain the present criminal appeal. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved: Appeal against rejection of bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. by Special Judge(NIA Cases) Raj, Jaipur.

Summary:

Issue 1: Appellant's contention regarding lack of evidence connecting him to the alleged crime.

The appellant argued that he was not present at the time of seizure of explosives, no incriminating material was found in his mobile, and the car from which explosives were recovered was seized prior to his arrest. He also claimed that the disclosure of his name by a co-accused cannot be used against him as it was made in police custody.

Issue 2: Prosecution's argument for denying bail under Section 43D(5) of The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.

The prosecution vehemently opposed the bail application, citing the provision of Section 43D(5) of the Act, which states that bail shall not be granted if there are reasonable grounds to believe the accusation is prima facie true. They presented evidence of the appellant's previous arrest for similar offenses, statements of co-accused implicating him in meetings, and mobile phone records connecting him to other accused.

Judgement:

The court considered the evidence presented by the prosecution, including the appellant's past arrest, statements of co-accused, and mobile phone records. They noted the specific bar under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA Act and concluded that there was prima facie evidence against the appellant. Therefore, the court dismissed the criminal appeal, upholding the rejection of the bail application.