The Supreme Court has granted bail to a man accused under Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) while observing that payment of extortion money does not amount to terror funding. The bench comprising Justices L Nageswara Rao and S Ravindra Bhat held that no prima facie case had been made against the accused.
The accused/appellant Sudesh Kedia was accused of committing offences under Sections 120B (criminal conspiracy) 414 (assisting in concealing stolen property) , 384/386/387 (extortion related offences) of the Indian Penal Code,1860 (IPC) read with Sections 17 (raising funds for terrorist act), 18 (conspiracy), 21 (holding proceeds for terrorism) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 along with Sections of the Arms Act and the Criminal Law Amendment (CLA) Act.
The bail application was rejected by Special Court, Ranchi and further affirmed by the high court. The FIR was lodged in 2016 against Vinod Kumar and others for being operatives / functionaries of a terrorist gang Tritiya Prastuti Committee (TPC) and for extorting levy from coal traders, transporters and contractors. The appellant stated that there were constant demands for payment of levy for the smooth functioning of the business of the transport company i.e. M/s. Esskay Concast and Minerals Pvt. Ltd.
The appellant was named in the second supplementary chargesheet filed in January 2020 and it was alleged that he attended meetings with TPC leaders and had paid levy to TPC leader Akraman from his current account. 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. The high court, while confirming the special court order held that he contributed to funding of the terrorist organisation as there is material on record to show that he was in constant touch with the members of the terrorist organisation in order to run his business, concluding that it was a case of terror funding.
The appellant argued that he was not a member of TPC and the meetings he had with them could not have been avoided and it was only for the purpose of his complying with the demands for money made by the members of the organisation. He contended that there was no way he could carry on smooth transportation of coal without meeting the demand of the terrorist organization.
The prosecution reiterated that the appellant had paid a huge amount of money to TPC and was in constant touch with them showing his involvement.
The court’s observations
The court held that while considering the grant of bail under Section 43(5) D, 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.
The court held that prima facie, it cannot be said that the appellant conspired with the other members of the TPC and raised funds to promote the organization. The main accusation is that he paid the extortion money while other accused were systematically collecting extortion amounts. “Payment of extortion money does not amount to terror funding,” the order says.
Further, it held that “Prima facie, we are not satisfied that a case of conspiracy has been made out at this stage only on the ground that the Appellant met the members of the organization.” Further, about the Rs. 9.95 lakhs recovered from the appellant’s home which he claimed to be for paying salaries of his employees, the court said that at this stage it cannot be said that the amount is proceeds from terrorist activity and besides, there is no allegation that he was receiving any money.
The court thus allowed the appeal and directed that the appellant be released on bail as no prima facie case has been made out; while making it clear that these findings are restricted only for the purpose of grant of bail and should not influence his trial.
The complete order may be read here:
Related:
The process itself is the punishment: HRF on NIA Raids
NIA raids activists in Andhra Pradesh and Telangana for alleged Maoist links
K’taka HC refrains from setting fixed time period for trial of UAPA cases