IMPORTANT POINT
Bail – When a case is made out for grant of bail, Courts should not have any hesitation in granting bail – If Courts start denying bail in deserving cases, it will be a violation of rights guaranteed under Article 21 of Constitution.

JUDGMENT :

ABHAY S. OKA, J.

FACTUAL ASPECTS

1. The appellant is being prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 121, 121A and 122 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘the IPC’) and Sections 13, 18, 18A and 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (for short ‘the UAPA’). A charge sheet was filed on 7th January 2023. He is shown as accused no. 2 in the charge sheet. The appellant applied for bail before the Special Court under the UAPA, which was rejected. Hence, the appellant and some co-accused applied for bail before the High Court. By the impugned judgment, the prayer for bail made by the appellant was rejected, while bail was granted to a co-accused.

SUBMISSIONS

2. The submission of Ms Mukta Gupta, learned senior counsel, is that there is absolutely no material to link the appellant with the offences under the UAPA. She pointed out that, at highest, the allegation is that the appellant’s wife was the owner of a building known as Ahmad Palace and that the appellant had clandestinely shown that premises on the first floor of the said building were given on rent to one Athar Parwez - accused no. 1. The allegation is that, the first floor premises are being used for objectional activities of an organisation called Popular Front of India (PFI). She submitted that taking the charge sheet as it is, no connection has been established between the activities of PFI and the appellant. Even prima facie material for connecting the appellant with PFI is not available. She submitted that various people occupy other premises in the building. The building has a pathology laboratory, a clinic, and shops. She pointed out that, therefore, CCTV cameras were fixed on the property. She submitted that if the activities of PFI were really being carried out in the building with the connivance of the appellant, he would not fix CCTV cameras inside the property. She would submit that the appellant's case satisfies the tests laid down by Section 43D (5) of the UAPA, as there are no reasonable grounds for believing that the accusations against the appellant are prima facie true. Learned senior counsel relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of Shoma Kanti Sen vs. State of Maharashtra and Another, (2024) 6 SCC 591.

3. Ms Aishwarya Bhati, learned Additional Solicitor General of India, invited our attention to statements of the protected witnesses V, Y, and Z, tendered on record, in a sealed cover. She pointed out that CCTV footage seized by the Investigating Agency of the building Ahmad Palace shows that on 6th and 7th July 2022, the appellant and accused no. 1 were seen shifting certain items from the first floor of the building. When the police conducted a raid on 11th July 2022, those items were not found, and therefore, the appellant tampered with the evidence. Relying upon paragraph 17.16 of the charge sheet, she submitted that protected witness Z disclosed that on 29th May 2022, the appellant attended a meeting-cum-training on the first floor of the building Ahmad Palace along with several other accused who were associated with PFI. During this meeting, the subjects relating to the expansion of the organisation, basic and advanced training of PFI members, Muslim empowerment, and future plans for PFI were discussed. She pointed out that the protected witness Z stated that after considering the remarks made by one Nupur Sharma on the Prophet Mohammed, directions were issued to the trained PFI members to attack and kill the selected targets who were involved in making derogatory remarks against the religion. Learned ASG pointed out that paragraph 17.26 of the charge sheet shows that on 12th May 2022, a sum of Rs. 25,000/- was transferred to the account of the appellant’s son, from an account of an absconding accused. She submitted that the rent agreement was bogus and was made to mislead the police, and the appellant had knowingly allowed the first floor premises to be used for PFI’s activities. She would submit that ther