9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (8) TMI 1463X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at 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 h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ejected. 2. It is contended by counsel for the appellant that appellant was arrested on 07.04.2022. Prior to his arrest he was called by Police Station Ratlam on 04.04.2022. His custody was given to ATS on 04.04.2022, thereafter, he was called on 05.04.2022 and 06.04.2022 and then he was arrested by the ATS on 07.04.2022. It is also contended that except two mobile phones, nothing has been recover ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct with the other co-accused. 3. Mr. Tej Prakash Sharma, Special Public Prosecutor appearing for NIA has vehemently opposed the criminal appeal. It is contended that proviso of Section 43D(5) of The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967(hereinafter called as Act ) provides that such accused person shall not be released on bail or on his own bond if the Court, on a perusal of the case diary or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a false affidavit before the Court. It is further contended that in the IPDR report, mobile number of the present appellant had connectivity with the co-accused of this case. Accused has also given information under Section 27 of Evidence Act. 5. We have considered the contentions. 6. Looking to the fact that prima facie there is evidence against the accused; that he was earlier also arrested for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
