Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Sunil Dharma Mane, a Senior Inspector of Police, was arrested on 23 April 2021 in connection with the murder of Mansukh Hiran and related offences under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. The case originated from a theft FIR of a Mahindra Scorpio vehicle, which was later found with explosives and a threat note. The deceased Mansukh Hiran was the owner of the vehicle. The NIA alleged that the appellant, along with co-accused Sachin Waze and others, conspired to murder Hiran. The appellant was charged under Sections 120B, 201, 302, 364 IPC and Sections 16, 18, 20 of the UAP Act. The appellant filed a bail application which was rejected, leading to this appeal under Section 21 of the NIA Act. The court examined the material on record, including CDR records, witness statements, and CCTV footage. The appellant argued that there was no direct evidence linking him to the conspiracy, no recovery of any incriminating material, and no forensic proof. The court noted that the CDR showed the appellant left his office before the victim arrived at the Commissioner's office. The court also observed that the appellant's visit to the Commissioner's office was for legitimate purposes such as enquiring about travel permission and gun licence. The court held that there was no prima facie evidence to justify the stringent bail conditions under the UAP Act. The court allowed the appeal and granted bail to the appellant on certain conditions.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Bail - NIA Act, 2008 Section 21 - Prima Facie Case - Appellant, a Senior Police Inspector, was arrested for alleged involvement in murder of Mansukh Hiran and offences under UAP Act - Court found no direct evidence linking appellant to conspiracy, no recovery, no forensic proof, and CDR showing appellant left office before victim's arrival - Held that appellant made out a case for bail as there was no prima facie material to justify continued detention (Paras 1-51).
B) Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 - Sections 16, 18, 20 - Criminal Conspiracy - Allegations of conspiracy to commit terrorist act - Court observed that mere meetings with co-accused or use of benami SIM card without corroboration of criminal intent does not establish conspiracy under UAP Act - Held that stringent bail conditions under UAP Act do not apply in absence of prima facie evidence (Paras 10-12).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellant, a Senior Inspector of Police, is entitled to bail under Section 21 of the NIA Act, 2008, given the allegations of criminal conspiracy, murder, and offences under the UAP Act.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The appellant is granted bail on such terms and conditions as the trial court may impose.
Law Points
- Bail under NIA Act
- Section 21
- Prima facie case
- Criminal conspiracy
- Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act
- 1967 Sections 16
- 18
- 20
- Benami SIM card
- Call Detail Records
- Circumstantial evidence
- No direct evidence
- No recovery
- No forensic proof
Case Details
2024 LawText (BOM) (11) 182
Criminal Appeal No. 316 of 2024
Revati Mohite Dere, Prithviraj K. Chavan
Ashok P. Mundargi, Shailesh Kantharia, Naghdeep Oak, Kranti T. Hiwrale, Sandesh Patil, Chintan Shan, Prithviraj Gole, Krishnakant Deshmukh, Shubhankar Kulkarni
National Investigating Agency, The State of Maharashtra
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeal against rejection of bail application under Section 21 of the NIA Act, 2008.
Remedy Sought
The appellant sought bail in connection with offences under IPC and UAP Act.
Filing Reason
The appellant was arrested on 23.04.2021 and his bail application was rejected; hence he filed this appeal.
Previous Decisions
The bail application was rejected by the trial court.
Issues
Whether the appellant is entitled to bail under Section 21 of the NIA Act, 2008?
Whether there is prima facie evidence of criminal conspiracy under the UAP Act against the appellant?
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant argued that there is no direct evidence linking him to the conspiracy, no recovery, no forensic proof, and CDR shows he left office before victim's arrival.
Appellant argued that his visits to Commissioner's office were for legitimate purposes like travel permission and gun licence.
Prosecution argued that appellant played an important role by using benami SIM card to lure victim and handing him over to killers.
Ratio Decidendi
In the absence of prima facie evidence of criminal conspiracy or terrorist activity under the UAP Act, and considering the lack of direct evidence, recovery, or forensic proof, the appellant is entitled to bail under Section 21 of the NIA Act, 2008.
Judgment Excerpts
Feeling aggrieved with and dis-satisfied by the rejection of an application for bail, the applicant has preferred this Appeal under Section 21 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008.
The appellant is a Senior Inspector of Police, who was posted at Kandivali Crime Branch.
The appellant came to be arrested on 23.04.2021.
The final report cites as many as 323 witnesses and numerous documents.
The appellant has been chargesheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 201, 302, 364 of the I.P.C. and Sections 16, 18 and 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.
Procedural History
FIR No. 47 of 2021 (Theft FIR) registered on 18.02.2021; transferred to DCB CID on 26.02.2021; taken over by ATS on 07.03.2021; another FIR No. 35 of 2021 (Explosives FIR) on 25.02.2021; dead body of Mansukh Hiran found on 05.03.2021; NIA took over investigation on 21.05.2021 and 08.03.2021; appellant arrested on 23.04.2021; chargesheet filed; bail application rejected; present appeal filed under Section 21 of NIA Act.
Acts & Sections
- National Investigation Agency Act, 2008: 21
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): 120B, 201, 302, 364, 286, 465, 473, 506(2), 34, 379
- Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAP Act): 16, 18, 20
- Explosive Substances Act, 1908: 4(a)(b)(i)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.): 173, 173(8)
