Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD, S.B. PD. SINGH
Abid K.M. S/o K. Kader Abbu – Appellant
Versus
Union of India through National Investigation Agency – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. details of the prosecution case and evidence (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 2. arguments against the charges and bail denial (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 3. court's analysis and rationale for granting bail (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37) |
| 4. conclusion to allow bail (Para 38) |
JUDGMENT :
RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the National Investigating Agency (in short ‘NIA’).
2. These two appeals are arising out of the common order dated 28.06.2024 (hereinafter called ‘the impugned orders’) passed by learned Special Judge, NIA, Patna, Bihar (hereinafter called the ‘learned trial court’) in Special Case No. 07 of 2022/R.C. No. 31 of 2022.
3. By the impugned orders, the learned trial court has been pleased to reject the prayer for bail of the appellants during the ongoing trial. Both the appellants are aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the orders of the learned trial court.
4. In order to appreciate the matter, it would be necessary to take note of the prosecution case.
Prosecution Case
5. The prosecution case is based on a self-written report dated 12.07.2022 of Ak
The court held that allegations against appellants lacked sufficient evidence connecting them to terrorist activities, allowing for bail under the UA(P) Act.
Prolonged detention without trial violates constitutional rights, necessitating bail when evidence of participation in unlawful activities is insufficient.
The court upheld that mere suspicion is insufficient for bail; substantial evidence indicating involvement in terrorist activities justifies denial of bail under UAPA.
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.
(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 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 pre-trial detention without trial completion justifies bail, emphasizing constitutional rights over statutory restrictions.
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....
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
