A strong prima-facie case permits denying bail; delays caused by the accused do not justify bail claims under Article 21.

JUDGMENT :

K.S.MUDAGAL, J.

Challenging the order of rejection of his bail application, accused No.4 in Spl.C.No.152/2021 on the file of XLIX Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge (Special Judge for the trial of NIA Cases) (CCH-50), Bengaluru has preferred this appeal.

2. Appellant and 145 others have been charge sheeted in the said case for the offences punishable under Sections 15 , 16, 18 and 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (for short ‘UAP Act’), Sections 143 , 147, 307, 436, 353, 332, 333, 427, 504, 506 read with Sections 149 and 34 of IPC , Section 4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 and Section 2 of the Karnataka Prevention of Destruction and Loss of Property Act, 1981 (for short ‘KPDLP Act’). Against appellant Sections 16 , 18 and 20 of UAP Act, Sections 120B, 34, 149 read with , 145, 147, 188, 427, 436 and 353 of and Section 2 of KPDLP Act was invoked.

3. Appellant filed bail application before the trial Court claiming that he is falsely implicated in the case and he is in judicial custody since five years without trial. The same was opposed by the prosecution. The trial Court on hearing the parties by the impugned judgment and order has rejected his bail application on the following grounds:

(i) That there is material to show the involvement of the appellant in the crime.

(ii) Delay in trial is because of the calculated acts of the accused themselves. Therefore appellant cannot make the same as ground.

(iii) Section 43D(5) of UAP Act bars grant of bail as prima-facie case is forthcoming against the appellant.

The said order is challenged in the above case.

4. Heard both side.

5. Sri Siddika Aisha, learned Counsel for the appellant reiterating the grounds of appeal and grounds urged before the trial Court contended that the appellant is falsely implicated in the case and he is in custody without trial since five years. She contended that co- accused is granted bail, therefore, appellant is entitled to bail. In support of her submissions, she relied on the following judgment:

i) Mohammed Kaleem Ahmed vs. NIA , Crl.A.No.1722/2025 (DD 14.10.2025)

6. Per contra, Sri P.Prasanna Kumar, learned Special Public Prosecutor justifies the impugned order on the ground that there is sufficient material to show involvement of the appellant in antinational activities. He submits that the appellant did not even spare the police, the police station, delay in trial is not due to any act on the part of the prosecution, it was the strategy of the accused themselves which has led to the delay. So far as granting bail to some of the co-accused, he submits that they were not facing allegations of offences under UAP Act. Therefore parity does not apply, whereas the bail application of the similarly situated accused were rejected by the trial Court and confirmed by this Court and the Hon’ble Apex Court. He submits that the judgment in Crl.A.No.1722/2025 relied on by appellant’s Counsel isunconnected to this case and is not applicable. Whereas Crl.A.No.1425/2025 (21 (NIA)) preferred by accused No.4 against the similar order has been dismissed by this Court. He relies on the said judgment.

7. In support of his submissions, he relies on the following judgment:

i) National Investigating Agency vs. Zahoor Ahmed Shah Watali , (2019) 5 SCC 1

8. On hearing both sides and on examination of the materials on record, the point that arises for consideration is “whether the impugned order of rejection of the bail application of the accused is sustainable”

Analysis

9. Case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:

(i) That prime accused in the case with some political aspirations to grab votes of Muslims, conspired to create unrest in the society on religious lines and in that direction to provoke others, accused No.19 made facebook post belittling Hindu deities to invoke reaction of Naveen, a nephew of Shri Akhanda Srinivasa Murthy, MLA of Pulakeshi Nagar constituency, taggedhim to the said post. In response to such post,