Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
K.S. MUDAGAL, P. SREE SUDHA
Mohammad Arif @ Arif – Appellant
Versus
National Investigation Agency (NIA) Through Superintendent of Police – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
K.S.MUDAGAL, J.
Challenging the order to frame charges for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 121A, 153A read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 20 , 38 and 39 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (for short ‘UAP Act’), accused No.1/appellant in Special Case No.2274/2023 on the file of XLIX Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge (Special Court for trial of NIA Cases), CCH-50, Bengaluru has preferred this appeal.
2. Special Case No.2274/2023 is registered against appellant and accused No.2 on the basis of the charge sheet filed against them in RC-04/2023/NIA/DLI (‘RC-04/2023’ for short) for the charges for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 121A, 153A read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 20 , 38, 39 and 40 of UAP Act. At the stage of hearing under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. regarding framing of charge, appellant urged for discharge raising various grounds.
3. The trial Court on hearing the parties, by the impugned order dated 10.03.2025 accepted the appellant’s contention only with regard to Section 40 of UAP Act and discharged him for the said offence. However, the trial Court held that there are grounds to frame charges against him for
Sufficient evidence existed to justify framing terrorism-related charges against the appellant based on allegations of conspiracy and radicalization supporting a proscribed organization.
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 emphasized that bail applications under the UAPA require consideration of prima facie evidence and the severity of the accusations against the accused; strict adherence to statutory provisi....
The court affirmed that association with a terrorist organization with intent to further its activities constitutes a punishable offense under the UA(P) Act.
The court established that for offenses under the UA(P) Act, mere association with a terrorist organization is insufficient for conviction; intent to further the organization's activities must be pro....
(1) If Court is satisfied after examining material on record that there are no reasonable grounds for believing that accusation against accused is prima facie true, then accused is entitled to bail.(....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
