SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Pat) 269

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Vipul M. Pancholi, Ramesh Chand Malviya, JJ.
Manzer Parwez @ Manzar Perwez S/O Abdul Qayum - Appellant
Versus
The Union Of India Through The National Investigation Agency Bihar - Respondent
Criminal Appeal (Db) No.914 of 2023, Criminal Appeal (Db) No. 810 of 2023, Criminal Appeal (Db) No. 811 of 2023, Criminal Appeal (Db) No. 890 of 2023, Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 917 of 2023
Decided On : 02-05-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Syed Masleh Uddin Ashraf, Advocate
For the Respondent:Dr. Krishna Nandan Singh (A.S.G), Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh, Advocate, Mr. Ankit Kumar Singh, Advocate, Mr. Shivaditya Dhari Sinha, Advocate

IMPORTANT POINT
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 such matters.

Headnote:

NIA Act - Anticipatory Bail - NIA Act, 2008, Section 21(4); UAPA, 1967, Section 13; IPC, Sections 120, 120B, 121, 121A, 153A, 153B, 34; UAPA, Section 43D(4) - The court discussed the provisions of the NIA Act and UAPA, emphasizing the stringent requirements for anticipatory bail under Section 43D(4) of the UAPA, which bars anticipatory bail in cases involving terrorism-related offenses. The court interpreted the evidence collected by the NIA as sufficient to establish a prima facie case against the appellants, leading to the dismissal of their bail applications.

Fact of the Case:

The appeals arose from the rejection of anticipatory bail applications by the Special Judge, NIA, Patna, Bihar, concerning five appellants implicated in a conspiracy to disrupt the Prime Minister's visit to Bihar. The NIA took over the investigation after the Bihar Police uncovered documents suggesting unlawful activities aimed at establishing a Pan-Islamic rule in India. The appellants claimed their involvement was based on coerced statements from co-accused and argued that the documents seized were innocuous.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the NIA had gathered substantial evidence indicating a conspiracy involving the appellants, including training sessions for PFI cadres and plans to incite violence. The court noted that the prima facie evidence was sufficient to justify the rejection of bail, as the appellants were evading arrest and the nature of the allegations was serious.

Issues: The primary issue was whether the appellants were entitled to anticipatory bail under the provisions of the NIA Act and UAPA, given the serious nature of the charges against them and the evidence presented by the NIA.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the stringent provisions of Section 43D(4) of the UAPA apply, which prohibits anticipatory bail in cases involving terrorism-related offenses. The court emphasized that the evidence presented by the NIA established a prima facie case against the appellants, justifying the denial of bail.

Final Decision: All five appeals for anticipatory bail were dismissed, affirming the lower court's decision to reject the bail applications based on the evidence of a conspiracy and the serious nature of the charges under the UAPA and IPC.

JUDGMENT :

Vipul M. Pancholi, J.

All the five appeals, i.e., Criminal Appeal (DB) No.914 of 2023 (Manzer Parwez @ Manzar Perwez Vs. The Union of India through the National Investigation Agency Bihar), Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 810 of 2023 (Abdur Rahman @ Abdul Rahman Vs. The Union of India through the National Investigation Agency Bihar), Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 811 of 2023 (Mahboob Alam @ Mahboob Nadwi Vs. The National Investigation Agency Bihar), Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 890 of 2023 (Shamim Akhtar S/O Md. Wasimuddin Vs. The Union of India through the National Investigation Agency India) and Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 917 of 2023 (Md. Khaliquzzaman @ Khaliquzzaman @ Khalikur Aman And Md. Amin @ Md. Amin Alam Vs. The Union of India through the National Investigation Agency New Delhi), which have been filed under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (for short ‘NIA Act’) have been heard together on the issue of grant of anticipatory bail and they are being disposed of by this common order.

Factual Matrix

2. The brief facts leading to filing of the present appeals are as under:-

2.1. The Bihar Police had received an information about the plan of accused persons to cause disturbance during the proposed visit of the Prime Minister of India. On receipt of the said information, a raid was conducted by Phulwarisharif Police on 11.07.2022 at the house of Jalaluddin Khan @ Md. Jalaluddin, who had given the upper floor of his house on rent to accused Athar Parwez. From the floor of the house taken on rent by Athar Parwez, documents relating to unlawful activities aiming 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 aforementioned agenda.

2.2. The said Jalaluddin Khan @ Md. Jalaluddin and Athar Parwez were arrested. The said accused gave the names of other 25 persons who were also involved in the unlawful activities and, therefore, against all the accused persons, Phulwari Sharif P.S. Case No. 827 of 2022 was registered.

2.3. It further appears from the record 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 NIA) to take up the investigation of the case vide order dated 22.07.2022. Pursuant to the said direction, the NIA 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 Indian Penal Code (‘IPC’ for short). Thereafter, Section 13 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (‘UAPA’ for short) was also invoked.

2.4. As the present appellants are apprehending their arrest, they filed separate applications for grant of anticipatory bail in Special Case No. 02 of 2023/R.C. No. 31 of 2022 (arising out of Phulwari Sharif P. S. Case No. 827 of 2022) before learned Special Judge, N.I.A., Patna, Bihar.

2.5. By way of the impugned orders, the learned Special Judge, N.I.A., Patna, Bihar, rejected the applications filed by the respective appellants for grant of anticipatory bail and, therefore, the respective appellant filed separate appeal under Section 21(4) of the NIA Act.

3. We have heard Mr. Syed Masleh Uddin Ashraf, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants in all the appeals and Dr. K. N. Singh, learned Additional Solicitor General for India assisted by Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh and Mr. Arbind Kumar, learned Advocates for the respondent Union of India in all the appeals.

4. At the outset, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants pointed out that the appellant of Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 914 of 2023, namely, Manzer Parwez @ Manzar Perwez is shown as accused No. 18, appellant of Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 516 of 2023, namely, Abdur Rahman @ Abdul Rahman is shown as accused N

            Click Here to Read the rest of this document
            1
            2
            3
            4
            5
            6
            7
            8
            9
            10
            11
            SupremeToday Portrait Ad
            supreme today icon
            logo-black

            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

            qr

            Scan Me!

            India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

            For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

            whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
            whatsapp-icon Back to top