Justice Bharati Dangre Image: https://www.theleaflet.in
The Bombay High Court has granted bail to a contract worker with Reliance Energy charged for harbouring a terrorist, for illegally disrupting essential services and for being involved in activities of Communist Party of India (Maoist). The bench of Justice Bharati Dangre observed that since prima facie material was insufficient to establish charges against the applicant, Saidulu Narsimha Singapanga, he is entitled to bail.
Arguments
The counsel for the applicant, Sudeep Pasbola submitted that he was arrested much after the crime was registered, and is not named in the FIR and he is not charged under Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA). In fact, he submitted that the applicant was arrested based on an instance of mistaken identity, in place of one Saidulu Gondrigalla. The allegations against the applicant are that he deliberately and unlawfully stopped the work of Reliance Energy Company for one day which provides essential services and thereby acted by disrupting the essential services; that he harboured accused no.1 and helped in concealing his identity knowing fully of his terrorist activities, and that he told the contractors of Reliance Company that he is a Naxalite and thereby pressured them to provide financial help to the banned organization CPI(Maoist).
Pasbola submitted that none of the witness statements in the chargesheet implicate him under offences of the Unlawful Activities (prevention) Act (UAPA). He also submitted that he was never suspended by his employer, Reliance Energy, prior to his arrest. He further submitted that all other accused were enlarged on default bail and there was no cogent material against the applicant in the chargesheet, thus he should be granted bail.
The public prosecutor, Sharmila Kaushik, submitted that the material which has been seized from the applicant clearly pinpoint to his involvement and complicity. She further submitted that the applicant not only assisted the other accused but himself actively participated and involved himself in the meetings of the organisation, collecting and raising funds.
Court’s findings
Upon perusal of the materials against the applicant, the court was of the view that prima facie, the material was not sufficient to indict the applicant under UAPA. The court held that the material also does not indicate any act which causes or intended to cause disaffection against India. The court further observed that the existing material compiled in the chargesheet, do not support the case of harbouring accused no.1 at the instance of the applicant nor is the material sufficient to indict the applicant as a member of a terrorist gang or an organisation.
In the light of these observations, the court was inclined to grant bail to the applicant and held thus, “In absence of any cogent material being compiled in the charge-sheet, indicting the applicant for the charge levelled against him, particularly when all other co-accused are already released on bail, albeit default bail, the applicant in my considered opinion need not languish in prison any more in the wake of the material compiled against him.”
The applicant was granted bail on furnishing P.R. bond to the extent of Rs.50,000 with one or two sureties of the like amount. The court directed him to mark his presence in the Special court once a month and also at ATS police station, Kalachowki in the first weeks of every month. His bail was on the condition that he will not make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with facts of the case and will not tamper with evidence.
The order may be read here:
Related:
Bom HC issues notice in Fr. Stan Swamy’s bail plea; grants liberty to appear before vacation bench
Bhima Koregaon case: Bom HC seeks State’s response in Shoma Sen and Rona Wilson petitions
SC to consider Constitutional validity of Sedition law, issues notice