IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
B. Veerappa, S. Rachaiah, JJ.
Saleem Khan - Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 130 of 2021
Decided On : 21-04-2022
NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY ACT - BAIL - SECTIONS 18, 18A, 20, 39 OF UA(P) ACT - SUMMARY
Fact of the Case:
The appellants, accused Nos.11 and 20, filed a bail application under section 439 of Cr.P.C. They were accused of offences under sections 153A, 120A, 120B, 122, 123, 124A, 125 of IPC and sections 13, 18, 19, and 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UA(P) Act). The trial Court rejected the bail application, leading to the present appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that there were no reasonable grounds for believing the accusations against accused No.11 to be prima facie true, and therefore, granted bail to accused No.11. However, the Court found that there were reasonable grounds for believing the accusations against accused No.20 to be prima facie true, and therefore, dismissed the bail application of accused No.20.
Issues: The issues before the Court were whether accused No.11 and accused No.20 were entitled to bail under section 439 of Cr.P.C.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that accused No.11 was entitled to bail as there were no reasonable grounds for believing the accusations against him to be prima facie true. However, accused No.20 was not entitled to bail as there were reasonable grounds for believing the accusations against him to be prima facie true.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the appeal in part, granting bail to accused No.11 and dismissing the appeal of accused No.20. The conditions for bail were also specified for accused No.11.
JUDGMENT
1. This Criminal Appeal is filed by appellant Nos.1 and 2 / accused Nos.11 and 20 respectively under the provisions of section 21(4) of National Investigation Agency Act (hereinafter referred to as 'NIA Act'), against the order dated 29.12.2020 made in Crl.Misc.No.7268/2020 filed by accused Nos.11 and 20, on the file of XLIX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge and Special Court for NIA Cases, Bengaluru (CCH-50), Bengaluru, rejecting the application for bail filed by the accused persons under the provisions of section 439 of Cr.P.C.
2. It is the case of prosecution that one Mr.Niranjan Kumar, Inspector of Police attached to the Economic Offence Wing, CCB, Bengaluru, gave information to Suddaguntepalya Police Station, Mico Layout Sub-Division, Bengaluru City on 10.01.2020 at about 9.00 p.m. On the basis of the said information, a FIR in Crime No.10/2020 came to be registered by Suddaguntepalya Police Station against 17 accused persons for the offences punishable under the provisions of sections 153A, 120A, 120B, 122, 123, 124A & 125 of IPC and under the provisions of sections 13, 18, 19 and 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as 'UA (P) Act'). On 22.01.2020, the matter was referred to the National Investigation Agency (hereinafter referred to as 'NIA'). Accordingly, on 23.01.2020, the NIA re-registered the case in RC.No.4/2020/NIA/DLI and accused No.11 was arrested on 20.01.2020 and accused No.20 was secured under body warrant on 09.03.2020. After investigation, the Investigation Officer filed the chargesheet on 13.07.2020 against accused Nos.11, 20 and others.
3. It is the further case of the prosecution that during the course of investigation, the role of the present appellants i.e., accused Nos.11 and 12 came to light. Accordingly, the Investigation Officer filed chargesheet against accused No.11 for the offences punishable under the provisions of sections 18, 18A, 20 and 39 of UA (P) Act and section 120B of IPC and against accused No.20 for the offence punishable under the provisions of sections 18, 20 & 39 of UA(P) Act and section 120B of IPC.
4. The accused Nos.11 and 20 filed application under section 439 of Cr.P.C., seeking regular bail, mainly contending that the accused No.11 has been in judicial custody since 20.01.2020 and accused No.20 since 09.03.2020. They are totally innocent of the alleged offences and they have not committed any offences much less the offences as mentioned in the chargesheet against them. Both the accused persons have got valid and tenable defence to make at the trial. The accused persons have neither directly or indirectly committed any offence nor are they involved in commission of alleged offence. They have been falsely roped in by the police at the instigation of their ill-wishers. Despite having taken both the accused persons to the police custody, the Investigation Officer could not place any material on record to indicate that the accused persons / appellants have committed the offences and they have been victimized by the police even though there are no prima facie materials available against them. It is further contended that they have been languishing in judicial custody for more than one year. The Investigation Officer has filed the chargesheet after completing the investigation and further judicial remand of the appellants is not required for any other purpose. If both the accused are detained in prison for any further time, their whole career will be spoiled in the midst of hardcore criminals in prison. Both the accused persons have aged parents, wife and children to look after and they are the only bread winners of their respective family and they are hailing from respectable family and they have no bad antecedents. They have got deep roots in society owning sufficient movable and immovable properties and they are ready to offer sur
A. Ramachandran vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Others
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Court must examine the material forming part of the chargesheet to decide whether there are reasonable grounds for believing the accusatio....
(1) Bail – There must be something more than grave suspicion while holding that there is a prima facie case to deny bail.(2) Pre-trial detention is an anathema to Constitution besides being in violat....
Sections 17 read as punishment for raising funds for terrorist act.
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.
Bail cannot be granted for offences under Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 unless Court comes to conclusion that there is no prima facie case against accused.
The court established that involvement with a banned terrorist organization and the collection of levies for such groups constitutes serious offenses under the UA(P) Act, warranting denial of bail wh....
Prima facie evidence and legal provisions of the UAP Act were crucial in determining the accused's involvement in the alleged offences.
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.