PRAFUL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard.

(2.) By this appeal filed under Sec. 21[4] of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, appellants/accused nos. 6 and 7 have called in question the impugned order dtd. 9/6/2023 passed in Criminal Application No.16/2023 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gadchiroli by which the application for grant of bail (Exh.4) came to be rejected.

(3.) Both appellants have been arrested on 28/7/2022 for the offence punishable under Sec. 120[B] read with Sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Ss. 10, 13, 18, 20 and 39 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as 'the UAP Act' for short). After facing police custody, appellants have been remanded to judicial custody. The investigation is completed and charge sheet has been filed. Appellants [Praful and Anil] have applied to the trial Court for grant of bail, however, the trial Court declined to exercise the discretion by expressing that a prima facie case is made out for invoking the provisions of UAP Act. While considering the claim of appellants for grant of bail, the trial Court has also considered the rigor of Sec. 43(D)(5) of the UAP Act, and ultimately declined to grant bail.