Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Bela M. Trivedi, Pankaj Mithal, JJ.
Union of India rep. by the Inspector of Police National Investigation Agency Chennai Branch – Appellant
Versus
Barakathullah Etc. – Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos. 2715 - 2719 of 2024 (@ SLP (Crl.) Nos. 14036-14040 of 2023)
Decided On : 22-05-2024
(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 439(2) – Cancellation of bail – Consideration applicable for cancellation of bail and consideration for challenging order on grant of bail on the ground of arbitrary exercise of discretion are different – While considering application for cancellation of bail, Court ordinarily looks for some supervening circumstances like tampering of evidence either during investigation or during trial, threatening of witness, accused likely to abscond and trial getting delayed on that account etc. whereas in an order challenging grant of bail on the ground that it has been granted illegally, consideration would be whether there was improper or arbitrary exercise of discretion in grant of bail or findings recorded were perverse. (Para 8)
(B) Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1957 – Sections 43D, 13,17,18,18(B), 38 and 39 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 120(b), 153(A) and 153(AA) – National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 – Section 8 – Grant of bail – Challenge as to – Charge-sheet need not contain detailed analysis of evidence – It is for concerned court considering application for bail to assess material/evidence presented by investigating authority along with report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. in its entirety, to form its opinion as to whether there are reasonable grounds for believing accusation against accused is prima facie true or not – In instant case, charge-sheet contains narration of organisational structure of PFI, objective of PFI, activities of PFI and identification of physical education instructors and masters as identified by protected witnesses / listed witnesses – All respondents-accused were members or office bearers of organization at relevant time – Investigation disclosed that activities and undeclared objectives of PFI had strong communal and anti-national agenda to establish Islamic rule in India by radicalization of Muslims and communalization of issues – Material collated and statements of witnesses recorded also show prima facie complicity of respondents-accused in commission of alleged offences – Question of discarding material or document at stage of considering bail application of accused on the ground of being not reliable or inadmissible in evidence, is not permissible – There are reasonable grounds for believing that accusations against respondents are prima facie true – If such order of granting bail is found to be illegal and perverse, it must be set aside – Impugned order passed by High Court set aside – Respondents shall forthwith surrender themselves before appellant-NIA. (Paras 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 22, 23 and 24)
Facts of the case:
High Court after taking into consideration the submissions made by Counsel for parties and materials placed on record including charge-sheet, allowed the said Appeals by common impugned order dated 19.10.2023, releasing respondents on bail subject to conditions mentioned therein. Being aggrieved by said order, present set of appeals have been filed by Union of India through NIA, Chennai Branch.
Findings of Court:
Since, charge-sheet has already been submitted before the Special Court, Special Court shall proceed with trial as expeditiously as possible and in accordance with law, without being influenced by any of observations made by this Court in this Order.
Result : Appeals allowed.
1. Leave granted.
2. The Central Government in Ministry of Home Affairs, CTCR Division having received a credible information that the office bearers, members and cadres of Popular Front of India (PFI), an extremist Islamic organization have been spreading its extremist ideology across Tamil Nadu, by establishing State Headquarters at Purasaiwakkam, Chennai and also offices in various districts of Tamil Nadu and that through their frontal Organizations like Campus Front of India, National Women’s Front, Social Democratic Party of India etc., they conspire for committing terrorist acts, raise funds for committing terrorist activities and recruit members for furthering their extremist ideology, and that the frontal organizations and PFI were involved in the recruitment of members to various prescribed terrorist organizations, passed an order on 16th September 2022, in exercise of the powers conferred under sub-section (5) of Section 6 read with Section 8 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘NIA Act’), directing the National Investigation Agency to take up investigation of the said case. In view of the said order, an FIR being RC-42/2022/NIA/DLI came to be registered on 19.09.2022 against the present respondents and other members and office bearers of PFI for the offences under Section 120(b), 153(A), 153(AA) of IPC and Section 13,17,18,18(B), 38 and 39 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the “UAPA”).
3. During the course of investigation, the respondents-accused herein came to be arrested on 22.09.2022 for the alleged offences. They filed their respective bail applications before the Special Court under the NIA Act (Sessions Court for Exclusive Trial of Bomb Blast Cases). The Special Court after considering the case diary, the documents and material produced before it, and after having been satisfied about the prima facie case made out against the respondents-accused as also considering the provisions of Section 43D of the UAPA in the light of the position of law settled by this Court in various decisions, dismissed the said bail applications filed by the respondents.
4. Being aggrieved by the said orders, the respondents filed Criminal Appeals being CRLA Nos. 98, 114 and 116 of 2023 before the High Court of Judicature at Madras. It appears that some of the respondents-accused had also filed Cr.L.M.P Nos. 11595 and 8094/2023 seeking interim bail pending the said appeals. During the pendency of the said Appeals, the chargesheet came to be filed by the appellant-NIA against all the respondents alongwith other accused on 17.03.2023 for the offences under Sections 120B, 121A, 122, 153A, 505(1)(b), (c), (2) of IPC and Sections 13,18, 18A, 18B of UAPA. The High Court after taking into consideration the submissions made by the learned Counsels for the parties and materials placed on record including the Chargesheet, allowed the said Appeals by the common impugned order dated 19.10.2023, releasing the respondents on bail subject to the conditions mentioned therein. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present set of appeals have been filed by the Union of India through NIA, Chennai Branch.
5. At the outset, the learned counsels for the respondents raising preliminary objection had submitted that the appellant having failed to mention about the SLP (Crl.) No.9384/2023 which was preferred by the appellant against the co-accused for cancellation of the bail arising out of the same FIR, the present appeal was liable to be dismissed under Order XXII, Rule 2(3) of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013. The said submission cannot be accepted. Rule 2(2) of Order XXII mandates inter alia that no petition shall be entertained by the Registry unless it contains a statement as to whether the petitioner had filed any petition for special leave to appeal against the impugned judgment or order earlier, and if so with what result. Rule 2(3) thereof states that the Court shall, i
(1) Grant of bail – Question of discarding material or document at stage of considering bail application of accused on the ground of being not reliable or inadmissible in evidence, is not permissible....
Under Section 43D(5) of the UA(P) Act, bail is to be denied where prima facie evidence substantiates serious accusations of terrorism, while less compelling evidence may warrant bail.
(1) Bail application – Question of grant of bail concern both liberty of individuals undergoing criminal prosecution as well as interest of criminal justice system in ensuring that those who commit c....
The court emphasized that constitutional rights to liberty prevail when trials are unduly prolonged, allowing bail despite serious terrorism charges.
Prolonged pre-trial detention without trial may necessitate bail, especially when trial completion is unlikely, balancing the severity of allegations with the accused's rights under Article 21.
The court may grant bail despite statutory restrictions under the UAPA if the accused's right to a speedy trial under Article 21 is infringed due to prolonged detention without reasonable trial prosp....
Prolonged pre-trial detention without trial completion justifies bail, emphasizing constitutional rights over statutory restrictions.
Prolonged detention without trial violates constitutional rights, necessitating bail when evidence of participation in unlawful activities is insufficient.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
