Libertatem Magazine

Jharkhand High Court Rejects Bail Application Under Unlawful Activities Prevention Act

Contents of this Page

Jharkhand High Court rejected a bail application filed by the petitioner Sudesh Kadia. The National Investigation Agency (NIA) charged the petitioner under Sec. 120-B (Punishment of criminal conspiracy) of the IPC, read with Sec. 17 (Punishment for raising funds for the terrorist act), Sec. 18 ( Punishment for conspiracy, etc), and Sec. 21 (Punishment for holding proceeds of terrorism) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) 1967.

Facts of The Case 

The petitioner is the director of a company, Esskay Minerals Pvt. Ltd. The company is in the business of transportation of coal and other minerals. N.I.A submitted the charge sheet with the petitioner and the CCL officials (Central Coalfield LTD) charged as accused. 

During the investigation the N.IA. discovered the following:

  • A connection between the Petitioner, CCL & the banned terrorist gang Tritiya Prastuti Committee. (TPC)
  • The petitioner took an active part in meeting with the terrorist gang.
  • He used to send money to the village committee through his current account. The transaction was through RTGS (Real Time Gross Settlement) as well as cash.

Petitioner’s submission 

The petitioner gave the money under coercion and threat. Further, the Court should consider the actions of the petitioner under Section 94 of the IPC. Section 94 of the IPC details a situation in which a person gets compelled to commit an act by way of threats. The witness statement also showed that TPC had a high connection with the Government.

Respondent’s Submission

N.I.A submitted that the petitioner used to make payment to TPC for running his coal mine business. He made a huge transaction and used to attend their meetings regularly.

Court’s Order 

The Court rejected the bail application of the petitioner under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act. The Court further opined that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation is prima facie true.

Moreover, the petitioner was active in the funding of TPC through bank transactions and cash to TPC. Also, the Court did not accept the argument of the petitioner under Section 94 of the Indian Penal Code. is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgements from the court. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe for our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.


About the Author