Law Updates Made Simple.

Court Denies Bail to Accused in Alleged ISIS Module Case, Citing Reasonable Grounds for Belief in Prima Facie Guilt

Background

The case involves an appeal filed under Section 21 of the National Investigation Agency (NIA) Act, challenging an order by the Special Court for Trial of NIA cases in Ernakulam, which dismissed a bail application submitted by the fifth accused in a case registered by the NIA (RC No.02/2023/NIA/KOC).

The appellant, the fifth accused in the case, was arrested on January 9, 2024, and the final report was filed on January 12, 2024. The materials placed on record indicate that the Central Government had received credible information about an ISIS/IS-KP module, a proscribed terrorist organization, working in secrecy to commit acts prejudicial to India's sovereignty and integrity by targeting prominent members of society and religious places of other communities.

Arguments

The respondent argued that the investigation revealed a strong link between the appellant and the second accused, who is a known Popular Front of India (PFI) worker involved in serious offenses. The respondent also contended that the second accused's involvement in the present crime was widely reported in the media, and the appellant had knowingly and willfully arranged a hideout and logistics for the second accused, despite being aware of his terrorist activities.

The appellant, on the other hand, argued that the only material relied on by the respondent to establish that the appellant knew the second accused was a terrorist is the media reports, which cannot be the sole basis to infer such knowledge. The appellant claimed that he had arranged the accommodation and logistics for the second accused to train him in stock trading, not knowing about his alleged terrorist activities.

Court's Analysis and Reasoning

The court noted that Section 19 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA), which deals with the offense of harbouring, requires the accused to know that the person harbored is a terrorist. The court rejected the appellant's argument that the accused must know the person is included in the fourth schedule of the UAPA to be considered a terrorist, as the purpose of the fourth schedule is only to enable the Central Government to comply with the requirements of Sections 35 and 36 of the UAPA and has no bearing on the offense under Section 19.

The court found that the appellant's close connection with the second accused's family, the monetary transactions between them, and the arrangements made by the appellant to provide a hideout and logistics to the second accused immediately after the registration of the crime and the arrest of the first accused, were sufficient to establish reasonable grounds for believing that the appellant knew the second accused was involved in terrorist activities.

Decision

The court upheld the Special Court's decision to dismiss the appellant's bail application, finding that there were reasonable grounds to believe that the accusation against the appellant of harbouring the second accused, a person involved in terrorist activities, was prima facie true, as required under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA.

The court also addressed the appellant's alternative argument that the constitutional courts have the power to grant bail despite the restrictions under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA, citing the Supreme Court's judgments in Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb and Shoma Kanti Sen v. State of Maharashtra. However, the court found that the present case was at an early stage, and the appellant could not yet claim a violation of his fundamental rights under Part III of the Constitution.