HITESH AGRAWAL Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals are being disposed off by this common order as the appellants in these two appeals are accused in Crime No.9 of 2020 registered in Police Station - Siksodh, Tehsil- Antagarh, District- Kanker (CG).

(2.) The prosecution story is that on 24/3/2020, on the basis of a secret information, the police authority searched a vehicle which was being driven by one of the co-accused Tapas Palit. Upon search, large number of pairs of shoes, uniforms, bundles of electric wires, sets of walkie-talkie along with charger, LED lens and other articles found in the possession of Tapas Palit were seized. The offences were registered under Ss. 10, 13, 17, 38 (1) (a) (2) and 40 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (for short "UA(P) Act") as also under Ss. 8 (2) (3) (5) of Chhattisgarh Vishesh Jan Suraksha Adhiniyam, 2005. When the matter was further investigated, the investigating agency found that number of other persons/accused were found working in coordination to provide materials and also financial support to naxellites. In that connection, the role of the two appellants herein namely Hitesh Agrawal and Varun Jain were also investigated which culminated in filing of charge sheet against aforesaid two appellants and many others for alleged offences wherein it was alleged that the accused are involved in supplying various articles and providing funds to naxellites. The appellants were also arrested. Each of them preferred applications for grant of bail before the trial Court (NIA Act) which were eventually rejected, giving rise to these two appeals under Sec. 21 (4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for appellant- Varun Jain argued that as far as this appellant is concerned, he is a Contractor and Proprietor of M/s. Landmark Royal Engineering (India) Pvt. Ltd., engaged in construction of roads and was awarded number of contracts of construction of roads in naxellite areas by the Govt. agency in the State of Chhattisgarh. He would submit that the work of contractor-ship was sublet to another construction company of one Ajay Jain named as Rudransh Earth Movers Road Constructions Company. The sub-contractor was given authority to carry out the work. Appellant - Varun Jain, as partner of the main construction company which was awarded works contract, has nothing to do with the naxellite activity as such. This appellant, it is argued, is being involved only because during the course of business transaction, various payments were made to Ajay Jain, the Director of Rudransh Earth Movers Road Const. Company. Only on this basis, without anything more, it cannot be said that the funds which were being provided by the appellant through its company to the company of Ajay Jain were intended to provide financial support to naxellits because Ajay Jain is not directly involved in the financial transaction of appellant Varun Jain with the Govt. Once payments are made by appellant's company to Ajay Jain company, thereafter how Ajay Jain has been dealing with any other person or even naxellites does not in any manner connects the present appellant Varun Jain with the naxellite activity. Learned counsel for the appellant further argued that the call details contained in the CDR of appellant Varun with Ajay are not material to make out any prima facie case of involvement of appellant Varun Jain with other persons said to be associated with naxellite because those calls are in the course of routine business transactions and execution of construction work. Further submission is that even while making search and effecting seizure, the investigating agency did not comply with the mandatory provision contained in Sec. 25 of the relevant Act as no approval of the competent police authority was taken before effecting seizure. Relying upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Sudesh Kedia Vs. Union of India (CRA No.314-315 of 2021 decided on 9/4/2021), it is argued that cases where financial supports were extracted by the persons involved in unlawful activities and payment allegedly made by way of extortion could not be said to be an act of funding terrorist organization. According to learned counsel for the appellants, in the present case, there is no evidence collected to show a direct financial transaction between the company of appellant- Varun Jain with the naxellites. The material evidence which has been collected by the investigating agency to prima facie establish connection and financial support to naxellites by Ajay Jain misses any such link of the appellant Varun with the naxellites and he is being involved only because during business transaction, this appellant had dealing with the company of Ajay Jain, the sub-contractor.