TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (5) TMI 1381
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....9 by the CISF for carrying cash of Rs.72.00 lakhs as she could not explain the source of cash available with her. Intimation was sent to Income Tax Department and investigation started. 1.2 The appellant in her statement to the Officials had stated that the cash in question belonged to the National Socialist Council of Nagaland (Isak-Muivah Faction), NSCN(IM) and she had received the cash from an associate of Mr. Muivah, General Secretary of NSCN (IM) at her residence and the same was to be handed over to Mr. Muivah at Dimapur, Nagaland. This information was passed on to the Special Cell and an FIR bearing No. 0228/2019 was registered by Delhi Police under the aforesaid provisions at Police Station: Special Cell for aiding and abetting NSCN(IM), which is a banned organization. The air tickets of the appellant were arranged on the direction of Mr. Muivah. The husband of the appellant is a relative of Mr. Muivah and he is a Steering Committee member of NSCN(IM) and was earlier Commander-in-Chief of the terrorist organization NSCN (IM). This money was to be used for carrying out terrorist operations and other terrorist activities in India. 2. Investigation was further handed over to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....arge-sheet was filed within the limitation period and no ground for statutory bail is made out. The prosecution continued to raid the premises of the witnesses at Delhi and Dimapur between 22.07.2020 to 25.07.2020; much after the charge-sheet was filed. It shows that charge-sheet in question is a part charge-sheet. 2.5 It is further alleged that the learned Trial Court has dismissed the application for statutory bail moved by the appellant, which amounts to non-application of mind and subverting the due process of law. Certain judgements have been cited in support of this contention. It has been submitted that the charge-sheet already filed is a preliminary charge-sheet, so the appellant/accused is entitled to statutory bail. As per law, when the charge-sheet was filed, the learned Trial Court would have taken cognizance of complete chargesheet on 11.06.2020 itself. Permission for further investigation could have been sought under Section 173 (8) Cr.P.C. The applicant/accused is languishing in judicial custody since 27.12.2019 without any reprieve and she is being detained illegally. 2.6 One more ground has been agitated that for certain period, the appellant was illegally confin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s in the pagination and documentation filed alongwith charge-sheet and the prosecution had sought 15 days' time to remove all the objections. NIA has filed the charge-sheet within the statutory period as per the legal provisions. The charge-sheet was filed after collecting sufficient prosecutable evidence against the appellant. However, it was mentioned that the further investigation will be continuing under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. to collect evidence against other known accused persons as well as against unknown accused persons. The present accused is not entitled to statutory bail as it is not an interim/part charge-sheet against accused/appellant. There is no question of obtaining permission for further investigation in this case. Once a charge-sheet is filed within the stipulated time, the question of grant of default bail does not arise. 3.4 It is also submitted on behalf of NJA that the active involvement of the appellant with the terrorist organization NSCN (IM) as a Minister and also her involvement in extortion activities stands established. If the appellant is released on bail, she will abscond and escape from the clutches of law and from territorial jurisdiction of India....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sed is already detained in person, his/her presence is not required. The accused was rightly ordered to be produced through video conferencing on 18.06.2020, the next date fixed in the matter. 4.2 Next objection raised in the petition is that on some occasions, the judicial remand was not extended by the Learned Special Judge. It is to be remembered that this was the peak period of Covid Pandemic and the Courts were functioning remotely through video conferencing and the proper functioning of the Courts was curtailed due to the pandemic. In such a challenging situation, technical objections raised during these hard times are of no consequence. It is to be appreciated that no part of the detention of the accused was without any effective order from a Court. However, the order dated 11.06.2020 has overlapped the period in order dated 06.06.2020 and instead of ordering the production of the accused on 14.06.2020, it was ordered that she be produced on 18.06.2020. So, in my view during no period, the appellant was detained in illegal custody without any authorization from a competent Court. 4.3 The next contention of the appellant is that the charge-sheet filed in the present case is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... incomplete charge-sheet as the case has already progressed much further and has reached to the stage where part evidence has already been recorded and it implies that the charge-sheet filed against the present appellant is complete charge-sheet, so there is no question of grant of default bail. 7. The appellant has also raised an objection regarding there being no valid judicial remand order being available on the court file as on 03.07.2020 after taking cognizance against both the accused persons including the present applicant for offence punishable under Section 120-B, 201,384, 465, 467 & 471 IPC and Section 17, 18, 20 & 21 of UA (P) Act, 1967 and u/s 25(1A) of the Arms Act, 1959. The matter was put up for scrutiny of documents on 04.08.2020. Even on 04.08.2020, it was the Duty Metropolitan Magistrate, who had ordered the appellant/accused to be produced before Court on 01.09.2020. It is pertinent to mention herein that it was peak of Covid period and the Courts were functioning in a very restricted mode and the learned Metropolitan Magistrates were deputed to the Tihar Jail itself to extend the custody remands as it was not possible to bring all the under-trials lodged in the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....peat that in both Madar Sheikh (supra) and M. Ravindran (supra), this Court expressed its view that non-filing of the charge-sheet within the statutory period is the ground for availing the indefeasible right to claim bail under Section 167(2), CrPC. The conundrum relating to the custody of the accused after the expiry of 60 days has also been dealt with by this Court in Bhikamchand Jain (supra). It was made clear that the accused remains in custody of the Magistrate till cognizance is taken by the relevant court. As the issue that arises for consideration in this case is squarely covered by the judgment in Bhikamchand Jain (supra), the order passed by the High Court on 31.05.2019 is hereby set aside." The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suresh Kumar Bhikamchand Jain v. State of Maharashtra & Anr., reported as 2013 (3) SCC 77 which is a judgment of full Bench has held as under:- "18. None of the said cases detract from the position that once charge-sheet is filed is filed within the stipulated time, the question of grant of default bail or statutory bail does no arise. As indicated hereinabove, in our view, the filing of charge-sheet is sufficient compliance with the provisions of Sect....