IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
M. GANGA RAO, T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO, JJ.
Giteli Imran - Petitioner
Versus
The State Rep. By Its Public Prosecutor - Respondent
CrlA.No.246 of 2022
Decided On : 28-10-2022
CRIMINAL APPEAL - UNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT - BAIL - SECTION 43D(5) - PRIMA FACIE TRUE - INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION - COURT'S DISCRETION - FACTORS CONSIDERED - GRANT OR REJECTION OF BAIL.
Fact of the Case:
Appellant, accused of espionage and anti-national activities under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, challenged the rejection of his bail application by the Special Court.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the accusations against the appellant were prima facie true based on the material on record, including the additional charge sheet.
Issues: 1. Whether the Special Court erred in rejecting the appellant's bail application. 2. Whether there were reasonable grounds to believe that the accusations against the appellant were prima facie true.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court interpreted Section 43D(5) of the U.A.P. Act, which restricts the Special Court's power to grant bail in certain cases, and held that the proviso to the section bars bail if the Court finds reasonable grounds to believe that the accusations against the accused are prima facie true. 2. The Court examined the material on record, including the additional charge sheet, and found that there were reasonable grounds to believe that the accusations against the appellant were prima facie true.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Special Court's decision to reject the appellant's bail application.
JUDGMENT :
T. Mallikarjuna Rao, J.
1. This is an appeal under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act (in short, 'the N.I.A. Act') directed against the order, dt.06.10.2021, passed in Crl.MP.No.613 of 2022 in SC.No.36 of 2021 (RC.No.5/2019/N.I.A./Hyderabad) by the Metropolitan Sessions Judge - Cum - Special Judge for Trial of N.I.A. Act cases, Vijayawada whereby the prayer of the accused/appellant to allow him to go on bail stands rejected.
2. The case of the prosecution, as set forth in the charge sheet, states as under :
(b) Against 14 accused persons under various sections of the law, a charge sheet was filed, including the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (for short, 'U.A.P. Act'). The prosecution's case, as outlined in the additional charge sheet as follows:
(c) During the search of the house of A19 on 14.09.2020, one mobile phone and other documents required for investigation were seized in the presence of independent witnesses.
(d) During the interrogation in police custody from 05.11.2020 to 09.11.2020, Appellant/A19 disclosed that he used to visit Pakisthan often until suspended services between Pakistan and India and clothes arranged by Ashfaq from Karachi, received by him through the transport services; he used his, his relatives (i.e., wife and brothers) bank accounts for depositing different accounts of money into various bank accounts. The investigation showed that the said Ashfaq shared the amount details of many Indian Accounts, including A8, A13 and A18, to him over WhatsApp and instructed to deposit the money into those accounts and A19 transferred Rs.4,000/- and Rs.8,000/- into bank accounts of A13 and A18 respectively from his Bank of Baroda Account using a mobile banking app, whereas he deposited Rs.18,000/- into the bank account of A8 using C.D.M. of ICICI of Godhra. During the investigation, A19 and his family members used several bank accounts to transfer money to many Indian Accounts in considerable amounts to two crores within a short period revealed. In contrast, they are doing petty businesses like auto driving, casual labour and second hand bike selling, which only provide sustenance for their livelihood. The given particulars of the bank transactions stand in the name of A19 and his relatives in detail.
(e) It alleged that suspected Pakistani I.S.I. recruited A-19 Agent Ashfaq Khandu for the said purpose. In lieu of money received from online handlers through Indian Agents, accused navy personnel, including A8, A13 and A18, shared sensitive official secrets with said online handlers. During the investigation, the call detail records of two mobile numbers of A19 were received from the concerned service providers. It revealed that A19 was in contact with a Pakisthan agent spies, including Ashfaq Khandu, through WhatsApp, an end-to-end encrypted messaging service to avoid detection by Law Enforcement Agencies. It also alleged that he intentionally destroyed the evidence by formatting and selling his mobile phone (Redmi 7 Pro). The Scrutiny of APFSL Forensic Examination Report dt.18.01.2021 regarding A19's seized mobile reveals that he has more than 300 Pakisthan contacts saved in his phone, and the accused was found in frequent con
Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb
National Investigation Agency vs. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali
The Court's discretion to grant bail under Section 43D(5) of the U.A.P. Act is restricted if the Court finds reasonable grounds to believe that the accusations against the accused are prima facie tru....
The court held that the Special Court did not err in dismissing the appellant's bail application, as there were reasonable grounds to believe that the accusations against the appellant were prima fac....
UA(P) Act - Grant or release on bail to an accused person, is enunciated as a non-obstante clause, which clearly and unequivocally postulates that, if the Court is of the opinion that, there are reas....
The dropping of charges under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act against the appellant and the principles of speedy trial and personal liberty were central legal points established in the judgm....
The right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is imperative, and prolonged incarceration without the likelihood of a timely trial may warrant the grant of bail.
The judgment established that the continued detention of the appellant was in violation of his right to personal liberty, and he was entitled to bail considering the delay in trial and the gravity of....
The court emphasized the importance of prima facie evidence, the right to a speedy trial, and the lack of incriminating material in the possession of the accused.
The legislative object of Sec. 43 D (5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, and the gravity of the accusations influenced the court's decision to dismiss the appeal.
Using as genuine a forged document or electronic record - Bail granted - Clause (b) of section 21(4) of MCOC Act it becomes evident that it contains an interdict against grant of bail unless Court sa....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.