IMPORTANT POINT
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.

JUDGMENT

A.V.SESHA SAI,J - Accused No.7 in Sessions case No.39 of 2020 on the file of the Court of the Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge for Trail of NIA Act cases at Vijayawada is the appellant in the present Criminal Appeal, preferred under Sec. 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

2. This appeal is directed against the order dtd. 10/6/2022 passed by the said Court, dismissing the Crl.M.P.649 of 2022, filed by the appellant under Ss. 437 and 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure, praying to enlarge him on bail.

3. Heard Sri Pankaj Singh, learned counsel representing Sri Ankalla Prudhvi Raj, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri N.Harinath, learned Deputy Solicitor General for Union of India for the respondents, apart from perusing the material available on record.

4. Submissions/contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant:

1. Prosecution erroneously invoked Sec. 120 B IPC and no case is made out against Accused No.7-appellant herein under the aforesaid provision of law and though the charge sheet alleges a conspiracy on general presumption, the same is completely silent on the nature of role of Accused No.7 in the conspiracy. The prosecution is trying to prove the alleged conspiracy qua Accused No.7 by a few bits here and a few bits there without any evidence.

2. No case is made out against Accused No.7-appellant herein under Sec. 18 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. There is absolutely no evidence to indicate prima facie case to bring Accused No.7-appellant herein within the four corners of Sec. 18 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. The prosecution failed to indicate the involvement of Accused No.7-appellant herein in any incriminating act within the meaning of Sec. 15 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, which defines Terrorist Act.

3. There are no reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against the Accused No.7-appellant herein under Sec. 18 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 is prima facie true and rigors regarding grant of bail under Sec. 43 D (5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 is against the Accused No.7-appellant herein.

4. No classified information/document was shared by Accused No.7-appellant herein, even to imposters and no case under Ss. 3, 4 and 5 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923 is made out against Accused No.7. The documents found from the mobile of Accused No.7-appellant herein are the documents taken from the internet, study material shared among the batch mates for half yearly routine departmental examinations and not a single document suggests that it is restricted in nature.

5. The appellant is languishing in prison for the last 34 months without any progress in the trial and the same is violative of the Fundamental Rights guaranteed to Accused No.7-appellant herein under Chapter III of the Constitution of India in general and also violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India in particular. It is shocking that out of 52 hearings, not a single one was effective hearings and in all 52 hearing, same order came to be passed by the trial Court.

6. The learned Judge had gone to the documents of other Accused No.9 i.e., Document No.151 and passed the impugned order erroneously on the basis of the said document by referring to the same as document of the appellant herein. The name of the Accused No.9 is also "Ashok Kumar".

7. English translations for Whatsapp chats are essential to enable the trail Court to go through the same and the same is lacking till date.

8. In support of his submissions and contentions, learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the following judgments.

1) Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Union of India (UOI) vs. K.A.Najeeb, AIR 2021 SC 712

2) Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Crl.A.No.11 of 2017 dtd. 3/1/2017 in the case of Sagar Tatyaram Gorkhe and Anr vs. The State of Maharashtra.

3) Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Crl.A.No.440