Back
RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD, SHAILENDRA SINGH
Md. Irshad Alam, S/o. Naimuddin Ansari – Appellant
Versus
Union of India through the National Investigation Agency – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J.)
This appeal has been preferred for setting aside the order dated 14.12.2023 passed by learned Special Judge, National Investigating Agency (in short ‘NIA’), Patna, Bihar in Special Case No. 7 of 2022/R.C. No. 31 of 2022 arising out of Phulwari Sharif P.S. Case No. 827 of 2022 registered for the offences under Sections 120, 120(B), 121, 121(A), 153(A), 153(B)/34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short ‘IPC’) and Section 13 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (in short ‘UAPA’).
2. As per the prosecution story, the informant filed a self-written report on 12.07.2022 at about 22:50 hours alleging therein that on 11.07.2022 at about 07:30 pm on a secret information, when he along with other police personnel conducted raid at the rented house of co-accused Athar Parwez at Ahmad Palace and at Gulistan Mohalla, he recovered flag, handbills, a seven pages booklet/document and a rent agreement paper. Accordingly, a seizure list was prepared and Athar Parwez and Md. Jalaluddin were apprehended.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant is not named in the First Information Report (in short ‘FIR’), his name has transpired in cour
The court upheld that mere suspicion is insufficient for bail; substantial evidence indicating involvement in terrorist activities justifies denial of bail under UAPA.
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....
Prolonged detention without trial violates constitutional rights, necessitating bail when evidence of participation in unlawful activities is insufficient.
The court held that allegations against appellants lacked sufficient evidence connecting them to terrorist activities, allowing for bail under the UA(P) Act.
The right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is imperative, and prolonged incarceration without the likelihood of a timely trial may warrant the grant of bail.
(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....
The court emphasized that constitutional rights to liberty prevail when trials are unduly prolonged, allowing bail despite serious terrorism charges.
Prolonged pre-trial detention without trial completion justifies bail, emphasizing constitutional rights over statutory restrictions.
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
