IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
K.S. MUDAGAL, RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR, JJ.
Zabiulla @ Zabibulla S/o A. Ismail – Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1527 of 2022
Decided On : 15-06-2023
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 153A, 121A, 120B, 122, 123, 124A and 125 - Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 - Section 13, 20, 17, 18, A, B, 19, 20, 38, 39, 43D(5) - National Investigation Agency Act 2008 - Section 6(4), 8 - Order of dismissal of bail - Conspired to indulge in terrorist acts - Challenging order of dismissal of his bail petition, accused No 16 has preferred this appeal – Charge sheet records contain bank statements whereunder he had transferred funds to accused No. 1 who in turn was acting to tune of an ISIS handler - Para 24.
Finding of the Court: Charge sheet records contain bank statements whereunder he had transferred funds to accused No. 1 who in turn was acting to tune of an ISIS handler - Trial Court on analyzing charge sheet material had already once ruled against appellant - He did not challenge that finding/order - Thereby same has attained finality - It is not open to him again to reagitate same point contending that acquiring tent materials etc itself does not amount to terrorist act - Even otherwise, charge-sheet contains material to hold that there are reasonable grounds for believing that accusations against appellant are prima facie true - Appeal deserves no merit.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
K.S. MUDAGAL, J.
1. Challenging the order of dismissal of his bail petition, accused No. 16 in Spl.C.C.No. 320/2020 on the file of 69th Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge (Spl. Court for trial of NIA cases), Bengaluru has preferred this appeal.
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
3. Based on the said written complaint, Crime No. 10/2020 dated 10.01.2020 under sections 153A, 121A, 120B, 122, 123, 124A and 125 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and section 13, 18 and 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (‘the UAP Act’ for short) was registered at Suddaguntepalya Police Station, Bengaluru, Karnataka against Mehaboob Pasha (A-1) and 16 others.
4. Subsequently, considering the gravity of the offences and interstate and international ramifications of the same, the Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi, in exercise of the powers conferred under section 6(4) read with Section 8 of National Investigation Agency Act 2008, issued its order vide No. 11011/11/2020/NIA dated 22nd January, 2020, directing the National Investigation Agency to take up the investigation of the case. Accordingly, National Investigation Agency (NIA) reregistered the said case in RC-04/2020/NIA/DLI, u/s 153A, 121A, 120B, 122, 123, 124A and 125 of IPC and section 13, 18 and 20 of UA (P) Act at NIA, New Delhi on 23.01.2020.
5. After investigation NIA filed charge sheet against accused Nos.1 to 21 for the offences punishable under Sections 17, 18, 18A, 18B, 19, 20, 38 and 39 of UAP Act, Section 25(1B) of the Arms Act and Section 120B of IPC specifiable to each individual accused. In the charge sheet the permission was sought to conduct further investigation. Permission was sought to conduct further investigation against accused Nos.22 and 23 the other suspected accused.
6. The charge sheet allegations against the appellant are that he has committed the offences under Sections 17, 18, 18A, 20 and 39 of UAP Act and Section 120B of IPC. It was alleged that he conspired with the other accused to indulge in terrorist acts to achieve the aim of the ISIS a terrorist organization and for that purpose he propagated the ideologies of ISIS, mobilized the funds, transferred them to accused No. 1, secured required articles to conduct the terrorist training camps, organized them and he too took training in martial arts including handling of the pistol, arrows and bows.
7. The appellant’s earlier applications for bail were rejected by the trial Court on the ground that there is prima facie material to show his involvement in the offences alleged against him, therefore, Section 43D(5) of the UAP Act bars granting him bail. Admittedly, the appellant did not challenge that order by filing any appeal.
8. The appellant and accused No. 19 Syed Fasiur Rehman again filed bail petition in Crl. Misc. No. 6090/2022 before the trial Court. The trial Court on hearing both side by the impugned order rejected the said application on the ground that
Sections 17 read as punishment for raising funds for terrorist act.
(1) Bail application – Exercise of general power to grant bail under UAP Act is severely restrictive in scope – In dealing with bail applications under UAP Act, courts are merely examining if there i....
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.
(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....
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....
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.