SANJAY GANGARAM AVATHARE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Hearing was conducted through video conferencing and the learned counsel agreed that the audio and visual quality was proper.

(2.) The applicant (original accused) has challenged two orders passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Gadchiroli, dated 02/09/2020 and 19/09/2020. By the order dated 02/09/2020, the said Court allowed the application for extension of detention of the applicant and another accused person for further period of ninety days under section 43-D(2) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as "UAPA"). By order dated 19/09/2020, the said Court rejected the application of the applicant seeking default bail under section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "Cr.P.C."). According to the applicant, the application for extension of detention ought to have been rejected and consequently default bail ought to have been granted to him.

(3.) On a secret information received, on 02/06/2020, one Ajay Ahirkar, Police Inspector at Police Station Sironcha, District Gadchiroli, lodged a report and a vehicle coming from State of Telangana was apprehended. In the said vehicle, the applicant and a person driving the vehicle were questioned and search of the vehicle led to recovery of bags containing ? 1,20,00,000/- (? one crore twenty lakhs 1,20,00,000/- (? 1,20,00,000/- (? one crore twenty lakhs one crore twenty lakhs only). The applicant sought to explain recovery of such huge amount of cash by stating that he was a Manager and that the cash was meant for distribution amongst tendupatta labours. The cash was seized and panchanama was prepared. An F.I.R. for the offences punishable under sections 17, 18 and 21 of the UAPA bearing Crime No.129 of 2020 stood registered in the matter. On 05/06/2020, the applicant was arrested and investigation was continued. This led to arrest of another accused person Lumaji Waghare. On the basis of the investigation, it was revealed that the said huge cash amount was meant for payment to naxalites engaged in activities prejudicial to the State. During the course of investigation, names of other accused persons were revealed and the material on record allegedly indicated that the absconding accused were members of a banned organization.