Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
ASHUTOSH KUMAR, ALOK KUMAR PANDEY, JJ.
Jalaluddin Khan @ Md. Jalaluddin, S/o. Late Md. Hassan & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
The Union of India through the National Investigation Agency - Respondent
Criminal Appeal (DB) Nos. 514, 516, 749 of 2023
Decided On : 28-11-2023
BAIL - NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY ACT, 2008; UNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT, 1967 - Sections 21(4) of the NIA Act, 1967; Sections 120, 120B, 121, 121A, 153A, 153B, 34 of IPC; Section 43D(5) and (6) of UAPA - The court analyzed the provisions of the National Investigation Agency Act and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, emphasizing the prima facie standard for bail under Section 43D of UAPA. The court interpreted that the gravity of the charges and the potential for tampering with evidence justified the denial of bail for two appellants, while the lack of substantial evidence against the third appellant led to the granting of bail. The court underscored the importance of the prima facie standard in evaluating the merits of the case at the bail stage.
Fact of the Case:
Three appeals were filed under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, seeking bail for the appellants, who were accused of being active members of the banned organization Popular Front of India (P.F.I.) and involved in unlawful activities aimed at disrupting the sovereignty of India. The bail applications were rejected by the Special Judge, N.I.A., based on the gravity of the charges and the nature of the evidence against them.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence presented against appellants Jalaluddin Khan and Athar Parwez was sufficient to establish a prima facie case of their involvement in serious offenses under the IPC and UAPA, justifying the denial of bail. However, for appellant Nooruddin Jangi, the evidence did not meet the prima facie threshold, leading to the granting of bail.
Issues: Whether the appellants were entitled to bail considering the nature of the charges against them and the evidence presented by the prosecution.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that under Section 43D of the UAPA, bail cannot be granted if there are reasonable grounds to believe that the accusations are prima facie true. The court emphasized that the assessment for bail should not involve a detailed examination of evidence but should focus on whether the evidence presented is sufficient to establish a prima facie case.
Final Decision: The appeals of Jalaluddin Khan and Athar Parwez were dismissed, and their bail applications were rejected. However, the appeal of Nooruddin Jangi was allowed, and he was granted bail subject to certain conditions.
JUDGMENT :
Ashutosh Kumar, J.
All the three appeals, viz., Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 514 of 2023 (Jalaluddin Khan @ Md. Jalaluddin Vs. The Union of India through the National Investigation Agency); Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 516 of 2023 (Athar Parwez Vs. The Union of India through the National Investigation Agency) and Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 749 of 2023 (Nooruddin Jangi @ Advocate Nooruddin Jangi Vs. The Union of India through the National Investigation Agency), which have been filed under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, have been heard together on the issue of grant of bail and they are being disposed off by this common order.
2. The application for bail of appellants/Jalaluddin Khan @ Md. Jalaluddin and Athar Parwez was rejected by the Special Judge, N.I.A., Patna in Special Case No. 07 of 2022/R.C. No. 31 of 2022, arising out of Phulwari Sharif P.S. Case No. 827 of 2022, by order dated 15.04.2023, whereas the prayer for bail of appellant/Nooruddin Jangi @ Advocate Nooruddin Jangi in Special Case No. 07 of 2022/R.C. No. 31 of 2022, arising out of Phulwari Sharif P.S. Case No. 827 of 2022, has been rejected vide order dated 01.05.2023.
3. The appellants are said to be the active members of Popular Front of India (in short P.F.I.), which is a banned organization and have been associated in its ulterior aim of causing bloodshed in achieving its so-called target of re-establishing Muslim rule in India.
4. The Bihar Police had received information about a plan of accused persons to cause disturbance during the proposed visit of the Prime Minister of India. On a tip-off, a raid was conducted by Phulwarisharif Police on 11.07.2022 at the house of appellant/Jalaluddin Khan @ Md. Jalaluddin, who had given the upper floor of his house on rent to appellant/Athar Parwez. From the floor of the house taken on rent by appellant/Athar Parwez, documents relating to unlawful activities aimed at disrupting the sovereignty of India and to cause disaffection against the country as also for establishing Pan-Islamic rule in India by subverting the Constitution of India, were recovered. The reading of the documents so recovered suggested propagation of armed struggle and violent means to implement the afore-noted agenda.
5. The appellants/Jalaluddin Khan @ Md. Jalaluddin and Athar Parwez were arrested and against them and others, a case vide Phulwari Sharif P.S. Case No. 827 of 2022 was registered. Later on, appellant/Nooruddin Jangi @ Advocate Nooruddin Jangi was also arrested in the said case on 16.07.2022.
6. It further appears from the records that the Govt. of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, after considering the nature and gravity of the offence, directed the National Investigation Agency (in short the N.I.A.) to take up the investigation of the case vide order dated 22.07.2022.
7. Pursuant to the afore-noted directions, the N.I.A. re-registered the case as R.C. -31/2022/NIA/DLI dated 22.07.2022 under Sections 120, 120B, 121, 121A, 153A, 153B and 34 of the I.P.C.
8. The police, after investigation, submitted charge-sheet against the appellants, whereupon cognizance has been taken against them.
9. The appellants have argued that the recovery of so-called hate literature, even if assumed to be correct, would not make out any case against the appellants under any one of the sections of the I.P.C. for which they have been charge-sheeted. The P.F.I. was banned only in August, 2022 and, therefore, the appellants cannot even be held guilty by association.
10. Apart from this, it has been alleged that appellant/Jalaluddin Khan @ Md. Jalaluddin was never ever a member of P.F.I. or Socialist Democratic Party of India (SDPI) nor was he ever connected with the activities of such organizations. He has superannuated from the Police Department and has been leading a retired life since then.
11. On behalf of appellant/Athar Parwez, it has been submitted that he was a member of P.F.I., but only till such time that it was not declared unlawful but he still
AI
The court established that the prima facie standard under Section 43D of the UAPA is a critical threshold for determining bail applications in cases involving serious charges related to terrorism and....
The court reaffirmed that anticipatory bail is not maintainable under Section 43D(4) of the UAPA in cases involving serious charges of terrorism, emphasizing the need for custodial interrogation in s....
The court emphasized that constitutional rights to liberty prevail when trials are unduly prolonged, allowing bail despite serious terrorism charges.
Prolonged detention without trial violates constitutional rights, necessitating bail when evidence of participation in unlawful activities is insufficient.
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....
(1) Bail application – Question of grant of bail concern both liberty of individuals undergoing criminal prosecution as well as interest of criminal justice system in ensuring that those who commit c....
Bail – Long incarceration and unlikelihood of trial being completed in near future has been taken as a ground for exercising its constitutional role by Constitutional Courts to grant bail – Accused c....
(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....
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.
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
