Patna High Court delivered 7 judgements on December 24, 2025 in Binod Mishra @ Vinod Kumar Mishra @ Vinod Kumar @ Vinod Mishra vs. The Union of India through National Investigation Agency, New Delhi, Branch Office Patna, Khushbu Kumari vs. The Union of India, Bindeshwari Yadav vs. The State of Bihar, Nawal Kishor Singh @ Naval Kishor Singh vs. The State of Bihar, Sikandar Ajam vs. The State of Bihar, Satya Narayan Das vs. The State of Bihar and Devendra Kumar Mishra vs. The State of Bihar.
In Binod Mishra @ Vinod Kumar Mishra @ Vinod Kumar @ Vinod Mishra vs. The Union of India through National Investigation Agency, New Delhi, Branch Office Patna, High Court's Division Bench of Justices Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Sourendra Pandey delivered a 6-page long judgement, wherein it concluded:"....there is no material to connect the appellant with any Naxal activity, there is no material that any activity was being conducted from his house or that he was participating in the said activity of the Naxals, further considering that the appellant has remained in jail for one and half year, he has no criminal antecedent and the trial is not likely to be concluded in near future, we set aside the impugned judgment/order of the learned Special Judge, NIA and direct release of the appellant on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Special Judge, NIA, Patna in connection with Special Case No. 02/2024 arising out of NIA, New Delhi P.S. Case No. RC/26/2023/NIA/DLI, subject to the condition that during the trial, the appellant shall present himself on the dates fixed in the matter and, in case of two consecutive defaults in putting appearance, his bail bond shall be cancelled by the learned trial court. 13. This appeal is allowed. 14. The case diary and other materials are being returned to the NIA."
Justice Prasad who authored the judgement observed:" In course of hearing, we called upon learned Special PP for the NIA to demonstrate from the case diary or from the deposition of the witnesses so far that there is any evidence to the effect that any meeting of the Naxals was held in the house of this appellant or this appellant was found present in any of the meetings. 10. Learned Special PP for the NIA could not demonstrate that material from the record. 11. This Court has gone through the disclosure statements of Pramod Mishra and Anil Kumar Yadav. Perusal of the disclosure statements would show that they had reached the house of the appellant all of a sudden, there is no material to show that they were
regularly staying in the house of the appellant or that any Naxal activity was being carried out from the said house. No arms or ammunition has been found either in the house or from the possession of the persons arrested therefrom."
The High Court heard the appeal which was preferred challenging the order dated May 29, 2024 by the Special Judge, the National Investigation Agency (NIA), Patna in connection with Special Case No. 02/2024 arising out of NIA, New Delhi P.S. Case No. RC/26/2023/NIA/DLI dated August 31, 2023 registered for the offences alleged under Sections 153A, 216A/34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 13, 18 and 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. The appellant prayed for regular bail in connection with this case. He was in incarceration since March 21, 2024.
The prosecution case was based on the self-statement of one Gulshan Kumar, the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Tekari, Gaya registered on August 10, 2023. In his self-statement, the S.D.P.O. (informant) alleged that on August 9, 2023, he got a secret information from the Central Agency that the dreaded Naxal Pramod Mishra and Anil Yadav were staying in the house of this appellant in village Hurrahi under Tekari Police Station and they were trying to strengthen and expand the organization in the Magadh Area by conducting meetings. On the basis of this information, the informant proceeded to verify it and on August 10, 2023, the police force surrounded the house of the appellant, in course of raid, two persons were found who disclosed their names as (1) Pramod Mishra @ Sohan Da @ Banbari Jee @ Bibi Jee @ Baba aged about 71 years and (2) Anil Yadav @ Ankush @ Lavkush aged 29 years. It was alleged that the
associates of these persons having sensed arrival of police had fled away. On search, from the possession of the two Naxals, one blue-coloured bag was seized from which in a purse seven notes of Rs.500/- and four notes of Rs.100/- total Rs.3,900/-, four letters for strengthening 'Gharelu Nukse’, one book, namely, Dihgam Yog Sandesh, another book, namely, Dastak and four memory card readers and from the door, one Honda Shine Motorcycle were seized. Since no one was ready to become seizure list witness, therefore, the two Constables who were members of the raiding party became seizure list witnesses. Both the Naxals who were caught there, they made their disclosure statements.
The appellant's counsel submitted that so far as the appellant was concerned, during investigation, no material much less sufficient materials have been found against him to show that he was involved in any Naxal activities. There was no material that he was present in any of the meetings with said Pramod Mishra and Anil Yadav. The reason for presence of Pramod Mishra in the house of the appellant was that Pramod Mishra happens to be the co-brother (sadhu) of the appellant and from the disclosure statement of Pramod Mishra itself, it would appear that he had reached the house of the appellant all of a sudden during the night hours when the appellant and his wife were alone in the house. The NIA had not gathered any evidence to show that any meeting was ever held in the house of the appellant.
No comments:
Post a Comment