Case Note & Summary
The appeal was filed under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, challenging an order dated 28.03.2022 passed by the Sessions Court, Gadchiroli, in Sessions Case No.99/2019, which refused regular bail to the appellant, accused No.1. The appellant, a legal practitioner, was in custody at Taloja Central Prison. The Division Bench consisting of Vinay Joshi and Valmiki Sa Menezes, JJ., heard the matter and, by consent of counsel, admitted the appeal and took it up for final hearing. The background facts arose from FIR Crime No.35 of 2016 registered at Etapalli Police Station on 27.12.2016. The FIR was lodged by Rajvindarsing Harising Shergil, owner and driver of truck MH-33/4348. It alleged that on 23.12.2016 between 11:30 a.m. and 15:00 p.m. at Surjagad Pahadi, 40 to 50 armed naxalites in olive green uniforms and 60 to 70 supporters in plain clothes intercepted a convoy of trucks carrying iron ore. The assailants abused and assaulted drivers and cleaners, forcibly gathered them in a forest, broke open diesel tanks, smashed windows, cut tyres, and set fire to about 35 trucks, three poclain machines, and one motorcycle. They shouted slogans like Communist Party Zindabad, Maoist Organization Zindabad, Lal Salam Zindabad. The informant and others were made to take an oath and then allowed to go. The FIR named several persons and unknown associates. Offences were registered under Sections 307, 341, 342, 435, 323, 504, 506, 143, 147, 148, 149 and 120(B) IPC, Sections 5 and 28 of the Indian Arms Act, 1959, Section 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, and Sections 16, 18, 20 and 23 of the UAP Act, 1967. During investigation, five accused were arrested between 18.01.2017 and 17.02.2017. The appellant was already in custody at Vishrambag Police Station, Pune, in Crime No.4 of 2018 under UAPA and IPC. On 17.04.2018, Pune Police searched his house and seized documents and a computer hard disk. Forensic analysis allegedly showed the appellant was a member of CPI (Maoist). The investigation claimed he provided aid to naxalites, entered into conspiracy, and directed the Surjagad incident. Seized literature included Maoist Information Bulletin-34; the appellant allegedly wrote to co-accused Varavara Rao about collecting and distributing funds and provided secret government information and maps. A surrendered naxalite, Makbul Ramteke, recorded a Section 164 CrPC statement that the appellant directed and instigated naxalites to oppose Surjagad mines. The appellant was arrested on 30.01.2019 in Crime No.35/2016. The investigating agency filed the final report under Section 173 CrPC on 29.05.2019, leading to Sessions Case No.99/2019. The Sessions Court refused regular bail on 28.03.2022. The appellant then filed the present appeal. The High Court admitted the appeal and took it up for final hearing by consent. The excerpt provided does not contain the final order on the merits of the bail plea, nor the detailed arguments or ratio decidendi. Thus, the final decision is not mentioned in the available text.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Bail - Section 21(4) National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 - Appeal against refusal of regular bail - The appellant, accused No.1 in Sessions Case No.99/2019, challenged the Sessions Court, Gadchiroli order dated 28.03.2022 refusing regular bail. The High Court admitted the appeal and, by consent of counsel, took it up for final hearing. The final outcome is not mentioned in the excerpt (Paras 1-3). B) Unlawful Activities - Membership of banned organization - Sections 16, 18, 20, 23 Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 - Charge sheet allegations - The charge sheet alleged that the appellant was associated with CPI (Maoist), provided aid and directions to naxalites, and was involved in the Surjagad incident of burning vehicles. The investigation relied on search and seizure of a hard disk showing membership and communications (Paras 4.10-4.14). C) Criminal Conspiracy - Common Object - Sections 120B, 143, 147, 148, 149 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Offences arising from Surjagad incident - The FIR alleged that 40-50 armed naxalites in olive green uniform and 60-70 supporters in plain clothes stopped trucks, assaulted drivers, broke diesel tanks, and set vehicles on fire, causing loss of property; the appellant was alleged to have directed the attack (Paras 4.1-4.9). D) Evidence - Search, Seizure and Witness Statements - Sections 164, 173 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Investigative material - The charge sheet was filed under Section 173 CrPC, relying on search panchanama, seized hard disk, forensic analysis, and Section 164 CrPC statement of a surrendered naxalite who stated that the appellant directed and instigated naxalites to oppose Surjagad mines (Paras 4.10-4.14).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellant is entitled to regular bail under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, considering the allegations under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Arms Act, 1959, and Maharashtra Police Act, 1951; and whether the Sessions Court's order dated 28.03.2022 refusing bail is sustainable.
Final Decision
The High Court admitted the appeal and took it up for final hearing by consent of counsel; final order not mentioned in the available text.
Law Points
- Bail under Section 21(4) NIA Act 2008
- Unlawful Activities Prevention Act 1967
- Criminal conspiracy
- Common object
- Search and seizure
- Forensic evidence of hard disk
- Section 164 CrPC statement
- Membership of banned organization
