IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Bail – Successive bail applications are not barred per se, but they can be entertained only if there is a demonstrable change in circumstances since rejection of previous application.
(2) Prior to 07.10.2020, non-furnishing of written grounds of arrest does not render arrest illegal.

JUDGMENT (ORAL)

Venkatesh Naik T, J.—Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/accused No.3 and the learned Special Public Prosecutor for the respondent/NIA.

2. The appellant/accused No.3 has filed this appeal under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, to set aside the order dated 15.04.2025 passed by the learned 49th Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (Special Court for the Trial of NIA Cases), (CCH-50) at Bengaluru in Spl.C.C.No.595/2021 and R.C.No.33/2020/NIA/DLI and prayed to enlarge him on bail in the said Spl. C.C. No.595/2021.

3. The brief facts of the case is that, in connection with the said case, two accused persons were arrested on 08.03.2020 for their alleged affiliation with the banned terrorist organization, Islamic State Khorasan Province (ISKP). During the investigation, another accused, Abdur Rehman @ Dr.Brave was arrested on 17.03.2020. During his interrogation, he disclosed that he had traveled to Syria in the year 2013-14 along with Afroz Ahmed, allegedly funded by members of a group called “Quran Circle.” He further revealed that pro-ISIS activists were actively operating in Bengaluru, involved in identifying and radicalizing gullible Muslim youths, recruiting them, raising funds and facilitating their illegal travel to Syria via Turkey to join and fight for ISIS. Pursuant to these developments, the Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi, by its order No.11011/61/2020/NIA dated 18.09.2020, directed the NIA to register and investigate a new case under Sections 120B and 125 of IPC and Sections 17, 18 and 18B of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (‘UAP Act’ for short). Accordingly, the NIA registered R.C. No. 33/2020/NIA/DLI on 19.09.2020 against four accused persons and took up the investigation.

4. On 07.10.2020, after securing intimation from the Special Court, search were conducted at the residential premises of accused No.3 Irfan Nasir and accused No.5 Ahamed Abdul Cader, during which, incriminating digital and physical articles, including a diary, were seized. Based on the materials recovered and subsequent examination of the accused, accused Nos.3 and 5 were arrested on the same day and they were remanded to judicial custody. Later, the Investigating Officer completed the investigation and filed the charge-sheet against the appellant and others.

5. The Special Court by the impugned order, rejected the bail application holding that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the appellant has committed the offences alleged against him. The Special Court further held that having regard to the material available on record with regard to commission of offences under the provisions of UAP Act, the Court is barred from granting bail in view of Section 43D of the UAP Act. Challenging the said order, the above appeal is filed.

6. Sri Ravi L. Vaidya, the learned counsel for the appellant/accused No.3 submits that there is a delay in conducting trial by the Special Court. The Special Court ought to have appreciated that though the recording of evidence in the above case commenced on 21.05.2024, however, as on the date of filing of the application for bail, only 13 witnesses have been examined as against 60 witnesses cited by the prosecution. The right of the appellant to speedy trial is violated resulting in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Secondly, there is non-furnishing of grounds of arrest by the Investigating Officer and since the respondent/NIA has failed to furnish the grounds of arrest in writing to the appellant at the time of arrest, the remand and further custody of the appellant becomes void-ab-initio being violative of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India. The Special Court has committed an error in holding that the requirement of furnishing the grounds of arrest in writing is applicable to only those cases where the arrest is subsequent to the date of decision of Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India and Others reported in (2024) 7 SCC 576.