The court upheld that mere suspicion is insufficient for bail; substantial evidence indicating involvement in terrorist activities justifies denial of bail under UAPA.

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 course of investigation but the materials on the basis of which the appellant has been brought within the purview of investigation and later on charge-sheeted under various Sections of the IPC and the UAPA would not prima-facie show that a case under the provision of IPC and UAPA is made out. It is his submission that the appellant has been implicated in this case on mere suspicion, he has been apprehended on 18.03.2023 and is in judicial custody continuously thereafter.

4. Learned counsel submits that this appellant was not a member of the Popular Front of India (in short ‘PFI’) and even if it is assumed for a moment without admitting it that he was a member of the organisation, that alone would not be an offence. Learned counsel submits that the present case is based on the recovery of seven pages of booklet/document, namely, India 2047 Rule of Islamic India, Internal Document. According to him, this booklet has been shown seized on 11.07.2022 at 20:30 hours but the same does not bear the signature of any of the accused. It is submitted that the book titled ‘Indian 2047’ has been published by Empower India Foundation in 182 pages in its supplementary edition of 2021 which has been forwarded by prominent persons of different walks of life and the same is in public domain and available on the website. This book nowhere mentions any content against the interest of the country and it would not amount to waging war against the Government of India.

5. It is submitted that the prosecution has miserably failed to bring any material on the record to establish that this appellant had conspired to kill anyone and for that he was acting as an activist of the organisation. Learned counsel has relied upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vernon Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Another reported in 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 575: 2023 INSC 655 and in the case of Shoma Kanti Sen Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Another delivered on 05.04.2024 in Cr. Appeal 2595 of 2023. It is his submission that the rigours under sub-section 5 of Section 43D of the UAPA would not come in the way of constitutional court in relaxing the rigours of such provision where there is no likelihood of trial being completed within a reasonable time. It is submitted that in this case even as charge-sheet has been filed and the learned trial court has taken cognizance of the offences alleged therein, yet the charges have not been framed and the trial has not begun, therefore, it is submitted that there being no chance of conclusion of trial in near future, the learned trial court has committed an error in rejecting the prayer for regular bail of the appellant.

6. Dr. K.N. Singh, learned Additional Solicitor General assisted by Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh, learned Advocate, has opposed the