RAJ KUMAR
Ranchi, Feb.4: Terror funding case accused Amit Agrawal alias Sonu Agrawal punched holes in the Jharkhand High Court order by which his plea to quash the FIR against him was rejected on January 18 this year.
It has come to the fore after Agrawal knocked on the door of the Supreme Court with a special leave petition for justice through his lawyer Bijoy Kumar Jain.
Agrawal, who is the director of Balaji Transport, pointed loopholes in the order saying that the high court did not consider several valuable points while passing its order that put him under trouble and he is being treated as fund provider for terrorist activity though he did nothing wrong.
He through his petition had submitted before the court that he was never a part of TPC or any of its concerns or committees. He said that he was a director of Balaji Transport, not its proprietor or owner as has been wrongly shown in the charge-sheet.
He informed the apex court that Balaji Transport had been transporting various minerals and commodities for Hindalco Ltd. since long. It started the transportation of coal from Magadh and Amrapali collieries of CCL in 2015.
“The charge-sheets detailed the modus operandi of extortion/collection of levies from coal traders/transporters/contractors by TPC and the organization
connected to TPC. NIA has recorded reasons for setting up the committee in the name of “Shanti Sah Sanchalan Samiti” for each village. It confirms that such committees were formed around 2012 when mining in the Amrapali collieries commenced and local villagers obstructed its operations. Clearly, the Petitioner was not and could not have been a part of the formation of these committees, formulation of extortion levy/schemes, its implementation, decision making, all of which pre-dates Balaji Transport’s business in the area,” he submitted referring para-17.4 of the second supplementary charge sheet of NIA.
“The investigation by the NIA has established that the transporters of coal are, in fact, the victims of crime. The members of TPC, as also the villagers, extorted levies from coal transporters/contractors to ensure smooth lifting and transportation of coal. The acts of causing obstruction/hindrance in the smooth supply of transport of coal to coal purchasers/power plants for extortion was construed by the Central Government as disruption of essential supplies in terms of Section 15(1)(a)(3) of UAPA and thereby termed as a
‘terrorist act’, and for this reason, the investigation was handed
over to NIA,” he further submitted.
Agrawal through his petition mentioned that he is a victim of a crime and not its perpetrator.
“The prosecution case as per the charge sheet dated 10.03.2016 {Annex P/2 @ pg 167- 179} and the first supplementary charge sheet dated 21.12.2018
{Annex P/7 @ pg 220-350} is utterly inconsistent with and mutually destructive of the allegations made in the second supplementary charge sheet dated 10.01.2020 {Annex P/8 @ pg 351-423}. The Hon’ble High Court has failed to appreciate the law laid down by this Hon’ble Court in the matter of Sudesh Kedia vs. Union of India, (2021) 4 SCC 704, wherein it has been held that
payment of extortion money does not amount to terror funding,” Agrawal submitted.
“By no stretch of imagination is the alleged delivery of money can tantamount to raising, providing, or collecting fund for a terrorist act or an attempt to do the above. Especially when NIA has accepted that the accused named in the original charge sheet dated 10.03.2016 and the first supplementary charge sheet dated 21.12.2018 have indulged in the commission of offences,” Agrawal submitted.
