KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Aravind Kumar and Pradeep Singh Yerur, JJ.
Shaikh Muhammed Bilal and Ors. – Appellants
versus
National Investigation Agency – Respondent
Crl. A. No.585 of 2021 a/w Crl. A. Nos.576 of 2021, 582 of 2021 and 745 of 2021
Decided on 15.9.2021

IMPORTANT POINT
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 – Section 43D(5) – Bail – There is no similar or analogous provision traceable in any other statute to one found in Section 43-D(5) of UAP Act – Exercise of general power to grant bail under UAP Act is severely restrictive in scope.

Headnote:

(A) Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 – Section 43D(5) – Bail – Apart from barring special court from releasing accused on bail without affording Public Prosecutor an opportunity of being heard on application filed seeking release of an accused, proviso thereto places complete embargo on powers of Special Court to release accused on bail – There is no similar or analogous provision traceable in any other statute to one found in Section 43-D(5) of UAP Act – Language employed for grant of bail adopted under said enactment remains unique to said enactment – Bail is rule and jail is exception, is conventional idea or thinking while considering application for grant of bail in respect of penal offence – Exercise of general power to grant bail under UAP Act is severely restrictive in scope – Restrictions for granting of bail specified in sub-section (5) are in addition to restrictions prescribed under Code of Criminal Procedure or any other law for the time being in force. (Paras 19, 20, 21 and 22)

(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 439 – National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 – Section 21(4) – Bail applications – Dismissal by Special Court – Cases registered for offences punishable under Sections 15 and 18 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, Sections 143, 147, 307, 332, 333, 353, 427, 436, 504, 506 read with Sections 34 and 149 IPC, Section 4 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 and Section 2 of Karnataka Prevention of Destruction and Loss of Property Act, 1981 – Source of power for court to grant bail in respect of non-bailable offence punishable with death or life imprisonment is traceable to Section 439 Cr.P.C. – Accused will have to demonstrate that he would also successfully pass tripod test; Whether accused is flight risk? (b) Whether there is apprehension of accused tampering with evidence? (c)Whether there is apprehension of accused influencing prosecution witnesses? – Test for rejection of bail will be sufficiently met if prosecution can, prima-facie, establish commission of terrorist act – Usage of inflammable substances to cause injuries to person or damage properties with an intention to strike terror amounts to terrorist act under Section 15 of UAP Act – Investigation material on hand reveals that petrol bottles were used while attacking police personnel and police station and such material being highly inflammable substance would prima-facie attract provisions of Section 15 of UAP Act – Overt acts would clearly indicate actions of accused persons in forming a violent mob in front of police station, attacking police station and police personnel using lethal weapons such as, clubs, rods, usage of petrol bottles and indulging in arson indicates that entire action was done with an intention to strike terror at public at large – Charge-sheet material would also prima facie indicate presence of appellants at spot of incident at the time of committing offence – Accusations against persons are prima-facie true and proviso to Section 43D(5) is attracted to facts on hand – Order passed by Special Court rejecting bail applications filed by appellants would not call for interference – Appeals dismissed. (Paras 20, 40, 42, 43, 44 and 45)

Result: Criminal Appeals dismissed.