No bail for 2019 police ambush accused: Jharkhand High Court placed ‘national interest’ above individual liberty

Justices Sujit Narayan Prasad and Sanjay Prasad

The order added that it may be inferred that this petitioner was part of a criminal conspiracy hatched by a proscribed terrorist organisation to assemble with deadly weapons to carry out a terrorist attack on the police personnel, in which four police personnel were killed, and government-issued arms and ammunition were looted.

Case of bail plea in ambush attack on police personals

The case investigated by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) involves an ambush on a police patrolling party on November 22, 2019, at Lukuiya More. The case of the prosecution of members of the proscribed CPI (Maoist) who fired indiscriminately at the patrol, killing four officers and looting their arms and ammunition before fleeing the scene.

Naresh Ganjhu, identified as one of the accused, was arrested on January 2, 2020, for his alleged involvement in the conspiracy.

Appearing for the petitioner, advocate Birendra Kumar submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and has no nexus with the members of the terrorist gang and has been made a scapegoat to ease the burden of investigation.

He further argued that the very few witnesses have been examined in the trial, and they have not supported the prosecution’s case as against the present petitioner.

State’s stand

Appearing for the NIA, advocate A K Das submitted that it is incorrect on the part of the petitioner to take the ground that there is no allegation against him; rather, ample materials have come against the appellant of having collaborated with the members of an extremist gang, as would appear from the various paragraphs of the supplementary chargesheet.

He argued that the gravity of the allegation against the petitioner is more serious in comparison to that of the said co-accused, Rajesh Ganjhu, and another co-accused, Baijnath Ganjhu.

He submitted that in the course of the investigation, it was revealed that the present petitioner is a resident of the village Beerjangha, and he used to work as an overground worker of co-accused Ravindra Ganjhu and used to provide logistic support to the members of CPI Maoist.

The armed cadres of CPI (Maoist) used to occasionally reside in the said village and take food from the villagers, he stated.

Main objective of UAPA

• The main objective of the Act of 1967 is to make powers available for dealing with activities directed against the integrity and sovereignty of India.
• As per the preamble, the Act 1967 has been enacted to provide for the more effective prevention of certain unlawful activities of individuals and associations, and dealing with terrorist activities, and for matters connected therewith.
• Therefore, the aim and object of the enactment of UAPA is also to provide for more effective prevention of certain unlawful activities.

• To achieve this objective and purpose of effective prevention of certain unlawful activities, the Parliament, in its wisdom, has provided that where an association is declared unlawful by a notification issued under Section 3.
• The Section described that a person who is and continues to be a member of such an association shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, and shall also be liable to a fine.
• Clause (m) of Section 2 of the 1967 Act defines “terrorist organisation”. It is defined as an organisation listed in the First Schedule.
• CPI (Maoist) has been listed at Item no. 34 in the First Schedule. Chapters III onwards of the 1967 Act incorporate various offences.

‘Recognition individual liberty not absolute’

The order highlighted that it is evident that mere delay in the trial of grave offences, as one involved in the instant case, cannot be used as a ground to grant bail.

While acknowledging Article 21 rights to personal liberty, the court stated that the scales of justice must balance on the one hand, the constitutionally consecrated and jealously guarded right under Article 21 and on the other, the recognition that individual liberty is not absolute and is subject to just exceptions, i.e. the paramount considerations of national interest and societal interest.

The order added that there can be no manner of doubt on the proposition that Article 21 rights are placed on a pedestal, and rightly so; at the same time, though, the individual cannot always be the centre of attention.

“We observe, therefore, that while Article 21 rights must always be protected, in cases where the security of the society and nation is called into question, the long incarceration cannot be the sole ground of consideration,” the court remarked.