Court makes clear that accused’s involvement in fundraising for prohibited Maoist outfit is clear
IN ITS detailed order dismissing requests for bail and release of Sathyanarayana Rani, an alleged agent of Naxal, a special court said that the lack of explanation for the possession of Rs 10.32 lakh with no known source of income , shows at first glance his involvement in fundraising for the banned Indian Communist Party (Maoist).
Sathyanarayana was arrested in 2019 for his alleged involvement in an IED explosion in Gadchiroli, which killed 15 security personnel and a civilian.
“It should be noted that the accused had no source of income and that he had never submitted any tax returns and that as such, in the absence of an explanation given by the applicant for possessing such a huge sum, one can say at first glance plaintiff that he was involved in raising funds for the banned organization, âsaid Special Judge Dinesh E Kothalikar in his order.
The bail application was denied on Friday and a detailed order was made available on Tuesday.
The NIA had claimed to have seized the amount during the arrest of Sathyanarayana and his wife, Nirmala Uppuganti, both alleged to be senior members of the banned organization.
Sathyanarayana’s attorney, Chandni Chawla, had argued on his behalf that the money was being managed by his wife to be used for her cancer treatment in Hyderabad.
It was also argued that there was no evidence to show that he provided or received funds for other terrorist activities.
The NIA also opposed the plea, saying it had evidence, including witness statements and seized electronics, which contained “Naxalite literature”. This included images of people killed in encounters, recorded cases, newspaper clippings, books on the Naxalbari, Mao, Lenin movement, Marx’s ideology and reports from the Communist Party of Nepal, China, a- we learned in court.
He also indicated that there were audio files of speeches about the deaths of 40 people during a meeting in Gadchiroli and the revenge to be taken for it.
âI am well aware of the legal principle that the mere seizure of certain elements concerning the prohibited organization in itself is not sufficient to mark the possessor as a memberâ¦ In this context, if the material recorded as a The confession of the co-accused is taken into account, in which case it can be said that it is not a question of mere possession of the literature, but the same is sufficient to conclude prima facie that the applicant was an active member of the banned terrorist organization â, the court mentioned.
Chawla had maintained that there was no evidence that Sathyanarayana was involved in any part of the plot to kill the police personnel.
The prosecutor said that the CPI (Maoist) strategy was to use different names and that there was a reference to Sathyanarayana’s presence at a meeting held in 2018 where it was decided to cause the death of the staff. security by the explosion of an IED.