Supreme Court junks Centre's plea against bail to Maoist financer in case of attack on police party in Jharkhand

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday rejected a plea by the Union government against bail order by the Jharkhand High Court to an alleged Maoist financer and  ympathiser allegedly involved in an attack on a patrol party in 2019 leading to death of four personnel.

A bench of Justices P S Narasimha and Aravind Kumar dismissed the special leave petition filed against High Court's order of January 30, 2023, enlarging accused Mrityunjay Kumar Singh on bail.

"In the absence of their being a strong prima facie case on the conditions of the bail having been violated, it would not be appropriate for the said order being reversed or set aside after a lapse of 15 months," the bench said in its judgment.

The court agreed with a submission by senior advocate Sidharth Luthra, appearing for the respondent-accused that the High Court order was passed way back on January 30, 2023 with conditions having been stipulated therein.

"It is not the case of the prosecution that any of the condition so stipulated has been violated or there has been infraction of any of the condition so imposed" the bench said.

Additional Solicitor General K M Nataraj for the Union government contended the respondent was an active supporter and sympathiser of the proscribed terrorist organisation.

He said being a partner of a construction company, the respondent-accused has been in conspiracy with the cadres of CPI (Maoist) and he has been supporting them not only by giving financial aid but also by managing the terrorist fund through showing dubious entries and investments in his accounts of his company. An unaccounted cash to the tune of Rs 2.64 crores was recovered from his house, the law officer claimed.

Nataraj also said a complaint was filed for threatening and pressurising the witnesses including the complainant. He also said three other cases were pending against the accused.

Luthra, on his part, said the accused had already been granted bail in all the three cases, including anticipatory bail in one case.

After hearing the counsel, the bench said, "We are of the considered view that interference is not warranted. However, to allay the apprehension of the prosecution, it would suffice to observe that the prosecution would be at liberty to seek for cancellation of the bail in the event any of the conditions being violated by the respondent".

The court also said, in fact, the apprehension that respondent is likely to pose threat to the witnesses and there was a threat posed to the complainant, would not be a ground to set aside the bail order in as much in the case for the said offence he has been granted bail.

"That apart we are of the considered view that there are no other overwhelming material on record to set aside the order granting bail which outweighs the liberty granted by the High Court under the order," the bench said.

The FIR in the case was lodged against 18 named and a few unnamed persons in the case related to indiscriminate firing on a police patrol party on November 22, 2019. The NIA filed the charge sheet against 34 reasons including the respondent for various offences including under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act and the Arms Act.