“Jharkhand High Court Dismisses Bail Appeal: Appellant’s Involvement in Channelizing Extorted Funds for Extremist Group Upheld”

Court’s Decision:

The Jharkhand High Court dismissed the criminal appeal, upholding the rejection of the appellant’s bail by the lower court. The court found a prima facie case against the appellant under Section 43D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. It was observed that the appellant was directly involved in channelizing the funds for the extremist organization, which is deemed dangerous to national security. The court noted that releasing the appellant at this stage could destabilize not only the police administration but also the lives of the citizens.

Facts:

The appellant was implicated in a case involving the illegal handling and conversion of extorted funds linked to an extremist organization. The case originated from a raid conducted on 10.11.2016 at a bank branch in Bero, Ranchi, where the informant and his team apprehended four individuals attempting to flee with cash. A sum of ₹25,38,000 was recovered from these individuals. The investigation revealed that the funds were collected through extortion and were intended to be deposited in bank accounts to convert them into legitimate earnings. The primary accused allegedly instructed the group to deposit the money following the Central Government’s demonetization policy. The appellant’s role was identified during a subsequent investigation by the National Investigating Agency (NIA), which took over the case.

Issues:

1. Whether the appellant’s bail should be granted, given the allegations of involvement in channelizing extorted funds for the extremist organization.
2. Whether the evidence against the appellant was sufficient to justify his continued detention under the stringent provisions of the UAPA Act.

Petitioner’s Arguments:

The appellant argued that:

1. There was no direct recovery of any incriminating materials or funds from him.
2. The allegations primarily relate to his involvement in the second module, which has no direct linkage with the initial accusations of the first module.
3. The appellant has been in custody since 31.07.2019, and the delay in the conclusion of the trial is prejudicial to his rights.
4. A co-accused was granted bail on 08.05.2023 on the grounds of the time spent in custody and the likelihood of delay in the trial.

Respondent’s Arguments:

The NIA opposed the bail, arguing that:

1. The trial was at an advanced stage, with over 108 witnesses already examined.
2. The appellant’s release would prejudice the trial, given the sensitive nature of the allegations involving the extremist group.
3. The appellant played a pivotal role in the organization’s second module for laundering funds for the main accused.
4. The appellant received ₹2,00,000 in his bank account and further facilitated the movement of ₹48,00,000 through a Hawala operator.

Analysis of the Law:

The court analyzed the applicability of Section 43D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, which imposes restrictions on the granting of bail to those accused under the Act. The court emphasized that bail can only be granted when there are no reasonable grounds for believing that the accusations are true. In this case, the evidence presented by the NIA, including telephonic conversations and financial transactions linked to the appellant, indicated a clear nexus with the unlawful activities of the extremist group. The court also considered the broader implications of releasing individuals involved in funding extremist activities.

Precedent Analysis:

The court referred to several judgments, including Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav (2005) 2 SCC 42, where the Supreme Court emphasized that a second bail application is not maintainable in the absence of a change in circumstances. It also examined recent rulings in similar cases under the UAPA Act, where the stringent bail provisions were upheld to prevent interference with national security.

Court’s Reasoning:

The court noted that the appellant’s role was not merely peripheral but integral to the operations of the extremist organization’s financial network. The evidence, including witness testimonies and documentary proof, indicated that the appellant was involved in multiple instances of channelizing extorted funds for procuring arms and facilitating the organization’s activities. The court found that granting bail would not only impede the ongoing trial but also pose a potential threat to public safety.

Conclusion:

The court concluded that there was no merit in the appeal and dismissed the application, affirming that a prima facie case existed against the appellant. The stringent conditions under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA Act were not satisfied, and the appellant’s release could hamper the trial process.

Implications:

The dismissal of the bail appeal reinforces the stringent nature of the UAPA Act in dealing with cases involving the financing of extremist activities. It sends a strong message regarding the judiciary’s commitment to upholding national security while ensuring that the trial is conducted expeditiously.

Also Read – Delhi High Court Upholds Interim Injunction Against Use of Identical Mark “EVECARE” by Appellant for Female Hygiene Products: “Prima Facie Passing Off Case Established”