Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
A. S. Gadkari, Shyam C. Chandak, JJ.
Razi Ahmed Khan - Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 883 of 2023 with Criminal Appeal No. 1151 of 2023 with Criminal Appeal No. 206 of 2024
Decided On : 11-06-2024
BAIL - Criminal Procedure Code, IPC, UAP Act - Sections 439, 121-A, 153-A, 13(1)(b) - The court discussed the provisions of Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code regarding bail, Section 121-A of the IPC concerning conspiracy to wage war against the government, and Section 13(1)(b) of the UAP Act related to unlawful activities. The court interpreted these sections to establish that the evidence against the appellants indicated a prima facie case of conspiracy to incite violence and hatred against the state, which justified the denial of bail. The court emphasized the seriousness of the allegations and the potential for evidence tampering if bail were granted, influencing its decision to dismiss the appeals for bail.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants, accused in a case involving the Popular Front of India (PFI), sought bail after being charged with serious offenses under various sections of the IPC and the UAP Act. The prosecution alleged that the appellants conspired to incite violence against the government and promote an anti-national agenda through meetings and the dissemination of extremist ideologies.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was substantial evidence, including witness statements and electronic communications, indicating that the appellants were involved in a conspiracy to wage war against the government. The court noted that the activities of the appellants were detrimental to national integrity and that releasing them on bail could lead to evidence tampering.
Issues: The primary issues were whether the appellants could be granted bail under Section 439 of the Cr.PC given the serious charges against them, and whether the evidence presented was sufficient to establish a prima facie case of conspiracy under Section 121-A of the IPC and Section 13(1)(b) of the UAP Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the evidence presented was sufficient to establish a prima facie case of conspiracy to commit offenses under Section 121-A of the IPC. It emphasized that the nature of the allegations and the potential for tampering with evidence justified the denial of bail.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the bail applications of the appellants, affirming the trial court's decision and requesting expedited proceedings in the underlying case.
JUDGMENT
A.S. Gadkari, J. - All the above mentioned Appeals are being decided together by this common Judgment, as they arise from same Crime Number, same set of facts and also involve common questions of law.
1.1. The common thread in all these Appeals is a prayer for bail under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code (for short, "Cr.PC" in Special Sessions Case No.24 of 2023, pending on the file of learned Special Judge, Nashik, arising out of C.R. No.20 of 2021, registered with AntiTerrorist Squad Police Station, Kalachowki, Mumbai, under Sections 121-A, 153-A, 120-B, 109, 116, 201 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, 'IPC' ) and under Section 13(1)(b) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, (for short, "the UAP Act").
1.2. The Appellants are original Accused Nos.3, 2 and 6 respectively as per the charge-sheet in the said crime. For the sake of brevity, the Appellants hereinafter will be referred to as per their original status in the charge-sheet i.e. Accused Nos.3, 2 and 6.
2. The Appellant, Accused No.3 has impugned Order dated 13th April, 2023 passed below Exh-1 in Criminal Bail Application No.324 of 2023, by the learned Special Judge, Nashik, rejecting his Application for bail.
2.1. The Appellant, Accused No.2 has impugned Order dated 24th August, 2023 passed below Exh-6 in Special (ATS) Case No.24 of 2023, by the learned Special Judge, Nashik, rejecting his Application for bail.
2.2. The Appellant, Accused No.6 has impugned Order dated 10th November, 2023 passed below Exh-11 in Special (ATS) Case No.24 of 2023, by the learned Special Judge, Nashik, rejecting his Application for bail.
3. Heard Mr. Mundargi, learned senior counsel for Appellant in Criminal Appeal No.883 of 2023, Mr. Desai, learned senior counsel for Appellant in Criminal Appeal No.1151 of 2023, Mr. Kazi, learned Advocate for Appellant in Criminal Appeal No.206 of 2024 and Mrs. Takalkar, learned A.PP for Respondent-State in all Appeals. Perused entire record produced before us and Affidavits-in-Reply filed by the Investigating Officers dated 24th November, 2023, 17th January, 2024 and 19th March, 2024 respectively.
4. Record reveals that, the first information report herein is filed by Shri. Gurudev G. Kale, Assistant Police Inspector, A.T.S., Nashik on 22nd September, 2022. It is the prosecution case that, on 14th June, 2022 between 6.15 p.m. to 7.15 p.m., an inaugural ceremony of the new office of the Popular Front of India (PFI) situated in front of Jameatus Swalehat Madarsa, Tension Chowk, Azad Nagar, Malegaon took place. At the said occasion, the Accused No.1 and other 15 to 20 persons were present. After the opening ceremony of the said office was over, a secrete meeting of the members of PFI was convened. In the said meeting, the Accused No.1 and other persons highlighted various atrocities being committed against the Muslim Community in Indian, including the incidents of mob-lynching. It was emphasized therein that, the need of unity of Muslim Community to wage a war against the country by adopting any mode. The Accused No.1 was the head of PFI, Malegaon and instigated the persons present in the said meeting to motivate people from Muslim Community with similar thinking, to enhance communication with like minded persons from the Community to create atmosphere against the Government of India and flared the emotions of people from Muslim Community. He also issued a 'Fatwa' and told to kill any person who would speak against the Muslim religion. He and other Accused instigated the Muslim Community to have hatred against the people of other religions so as to cause disturbance in the country. Accused No.1 also instigated Accused Nos.2 to 5 prompting them to enhance communication with people from their community to inspire them to wage a war in the State of Maharashtra and against the Government of India. The Accused No.1 attracts youngsters having extremist ideology from Muslim Community and is brainwashing them to wipe out their identity as In
The judgment establishes that serious allegations of conspiracy to wage war against the state, supported by substantial evidence, warrant the denial of bail, particularly when there is a risk of evid....
Bail cannot be granted to terror activists.
Prolonged pre-trial detention without trial may necessitate bail, especially when trial completion is unlikely, balancing the severity of allegations with the accused's rights under Article 21.
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.
Prolonged pre-trial detention without trial completion justifies bail, emphasizing constitutional rights over statutory restrictions.
The court may grant bail despite statutory restrictions under the UAPA if the accused's right to a speedy trial under Article 21 is infringed due to prolonged detention without reasonable trial prosp....
The court emphasized that constitutional rights to liberty prevail when trials are unduly prolonged, allowing bail despite serious terrorism charges.
(1) Grant of bail – Question of discarding material or document at stage of considering bail application of accused on the ground of being not reliable or inadmissible in evidence, is not permissible....
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
