Jharkhand High Court Rejects Bail Application Under Unlawful Activities Prevention Act

Must Read

Bombay High Court Allows Petition Seeking Lawyers and Legal Clerks To Travel in Local Trains

The present hearing arose out of a batch of Public Interest Litigations that was filed in the Bombay High...

Provisions for Retirement of Teachers Must Be Read With the Larger Interest of Students in Mind: Supreme Court

Supreme Court in Navin Chandra Dhoundiyal v State of Uttarakhand reinstated the appellants to their position as Professor on...

Parties Cannot Deny Specific Performance Merely Due To Delay: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, in Ferrodous Estate v P Gopirathnam, revisited the law on the specific performance of a contract....

Chandigarh Housing Board Is Bound To Implement the Chandigarh Administration’s Policy Decision: Punjab & Haryana High Court

On 15th October 2020, Justices Jaswant Singh and Sant Parkash heard the case of Bhartendu Sood vs Chandigarh Housing Board...

Bombay High Court Refuses Interim Relief to Doctors Alleging Arbitrary Placement at Government Hospitals for One-Year Mandatory Public Service

The Bombay High Court was hearing a plea against the arbitrary placement of doctors for a mandatory period of...

Uttarakhand High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Seeking Relief for the Cancellation of Selection Process

On 13th October 2020, a Single Judge Bench of Hon'ble Justice Lok Pal Singh, heard the case of Ashish...

Follow us

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.


Libertatem.in 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.

 

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Bombay High Court Allows Petition Seeking Lawyers and Legal Clerks To Travel in Local Trains

The present hearing arose out of a batch of Public Interest Litigations that was filed in the Bombay High Court to permit the members...

Provisions for Retirement of Teachers Must Be Read With the Larger Interest of Students in Mind: Supreme Court

Supreme Court in Navin Chandra Dhoundiyal v State of Uttarakhand reinstated the appellants to their position as Professor on basis of re-employment till the...

Parties Cannot Deny Specific Performance Merely Due To Delay: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, in Ferrodous Estate v P Gopirathnam, revisited the law on the specific performance of a contract. It reiterated that mere delay...

Chandigarh Housing Board Is Bound To Implement the Chandigarh Administration’s Policy Decision: Punjab & Haryana High Court

On 15th October 2020, Justices Jaswant Singh and Sant Parkash heard the case of Bhartendu Sood vs Chandigarh Housing Board & Anr., via video-conferencing. Deeming the...

Bombay High Court Refuses Interim Relief to Doctors Alleging Arbitrary Placement at Government Hospitals for One-Year Mandatory Public Service

The Bombay High Court was hearing a plea against the arbitrary placement of doctors for a mandatory period of one year. The petitioners prayed...

Uttarakhand High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Seeking Relief for the Cancellation of Selection Process

On 13th October 2020, a Single Judge Bench of Hon'ble Justice Lok Pal Singh, heard the case of Ashish Bisht & Anr. v. State...

Madras High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Against National Stock Exchange For Lack Of Merit

In the case of A. Kumar v. Financial Intelligence Unit & Ors., A. Kumar filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution...

The Federal Appeals Court Holds Trump’s Diversion of Military Funds To Build the Wall To Be Unlawful

The Federal Appeals Court held that US President Donald Trump’s diversion of military funds to build the wall is unlawful. A grey area in the...

Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal Filed Challenging the Judgment of Madras High Court in Ganesan v. State Represented by Its Inspector of Police

An appeal was filed before the Supreme court, challenging the judgment & order of Madras High Court. The Supreme Court upheld the HC judgment...

Bombay High Court Refuses Interim Relief to Doctors Alleging Arbitrary Placement at Government Hospitals for One-Year Mandatory Public Service

The Bombay High Court was hearing a plea against the arbitrary placement of doctors for a mandatory period of one year. The petitioners prayed...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -