TMI Blog2021 (4) TMI 1318X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e other material on record that other Accused who are members of the terrorist organization have been systematically collecting extortion amounts from businessmen in Amrapali and Magadh areas. The Appellant is carrying on transport business in the area of operation of the organization. It is alleged in the second supplementary charge-sheet that the Appellant paid money to the members of the TPC for smooth running of his business. Prima facie, it cannot be said that the Appellant conspired with the other members of the TPC and raised funds to promote the organization. It is not satisfying that a prima facie case has been made out against the Appellant relating to the offences alleged against him - these findings are restricted only for the purpose of grant of bail to the Appellant and the trial court shall not be influenced by these observations during trial. Appeal allowed. - L. NAGESWARA RAO AND S. RAVINDRA BHAT, JJ. For the Appellant : Ashok Kumar Jain, Pankaj Jain, Meenakshi Jain, Advs. and Bijoy Kumar Jain, AOR For the Respondent : B.V. Balaram Das, AOR JUDGMENT L. Nageswara Rao, J. 1. The Appellant is Accused of committing offences Under Sections 120B/414/384/386/387 of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... contractors, traders, transporters etc. was given. It was mentioned in the supplementary charge-sheet that coal traders/transporters were paying cash to Shanti Sah Sanchalan Samiti, Central Coalfield Limited, village committees and TPC operatives for carrying on their business smoothly. 5. On further investigation, a second supplementary charge-sheet was filed on 10.01.2020 in which the Appellant was shown as A-19. According to the supplementary charge-sheet the Appellant is engaged in transporting of coal on behalf of GVK Power and Godavari Commodities. He had attended meetings with TPC leaders and had paid levy to TPC leader Akraman (A-14) CCL employees and village committee members from his current account. In view of the payments made by him an inference was drawn that the Appellant colluded with the members of the terrorist gang (TPC) and was a party to a criminal conspiracy to raise funds for a terrorist gang. Further, an amount of Rs. 9,95,000/- (Rupees Nine Lakh and Ninety-Five Thousand only) was seized from his residential premises. The Appellant was apprehended on 10.01.2020. He moved an application for bail in the Court of Judicial Commissioner-cum-Special Judge, Nationa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the Appellant has committed offences Under Section 17 of the UA (P) Act. Huge amount of money that was paid by the Appellant to protect his business which amounts to raising funds to the terrorist organization. It was submitted that the judgment of the High Court does not warrant any interference as the Appellant was in constant touch with the members of the organization (TPC) which shows his involvement with the terrorist gang. 9. Section 43-D(5) mandates that a person shall not be released on bail if the court is of the opinion that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusations made are prima facie true. Apart from the other offences, the Appellant is Accused of committing offences Under Section 17, 18 and 21 of the UA (P) Act. The Appellant is Accused of providing funds to a terrorist organization. According to the prosecution, he has entered into a conspiracy with the other members of the organization to strengthen and promote the activities of the organization. Further, an amount of Rs. 9,95,000/- (Rupees Nine Lakh and Ninety-Five Thousand only) was seized from the Appellant's house, making him liable for punishable Under Section 21 of the Act. 10. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing of charges in relation to offences under the 1967 Act.... 11. While considering the grant of bail Under Section 43D(5), it is the bounden duty of the Court to apply its mind to examine the entire material on record for the purpose of satisfying itself, whether a prima facie case is made out against the Accused or not. We have gone through the material on record and are satisfied that the Appellant is entitled for bail and that the Special Court and High Court erred in not granting bail to the Appellant for the following reasons: (A) A close scrutiny of the material placed before the Court would clearly shows that the main accusation against the Appellant is that he paid levy/extortion amount to the terrorist organization. Payment of extortion money does not amount to terror funding. It is clear from the supplementary charge-sheet and the other material on record that other Accused who are members of the terrorist organization have been systematically collecting extortion amounts from businessmen in Amrapali and Magadh areas. The Appellant is carrying on transport business in the area of operation of the organization. It is alleged in the second supplementary charge-sheet that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
