2023 (8) TMI 1463 - HC - Indian Laws

Bail Denial Upheld: Prima Facie Evidence and Past Arrests Lead to Dismissal in Jaipur Case.

The Cr. App. challenging the denial of bail under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C. by the Special Judge (NIA Cases), Jaipur, was dismissed. The court upheld the rejection ... Rejection of second bail application filed by the appellant under Section 439 Cr.P.C. - appellant was involved in the explosives or not - It is contended that 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 his presence in the meetings; that he himself has given information under Section 27 of Evidence Act; that mobile phones have been recovered from the appellant which had connectivity with the other co-accused; that there is a specific bar under proviso to Section 43D(5) of UAPA Act, we are not inclined to entertain the present criminal appeal. Appeal dismissed. Appellant challenged rejection of second bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. after arrest on 07.04.2022. Contention: prior custody transfers, minimal recoveries (two mobile phones), car containing explosives seized before appellant's arrest, no material in charge-sheet showing appellant's knowledge of explosives, and that co-accused statements recorded in police custody cannot be read against him. NIA relied on proviso to Section 43D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, which provides that the accused 'shall not be released on bail or on his own bond if the Court, on a perusal of the case diary or the report made under Section 173 of the Code is of the opinion that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against such person is prima facie true.' Court found prima facie material: previous UAPA arrest (2015) with recovered jihadi literature; disclosure statements of co-accused about appellant's presence at meetings; appellant's own information under Section 27 Evidence Act; mobile phones showing connectivity with co-accused. In view of the statutory bar and prima facie evidence, bail was refused and the criminal appeal dismissed.