Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
PRATHIBA M. SINGH, AMIT SHARMA, JJ.
Javed Ali @ Javed – Appellant
Versus
National Investigation Agency – Respondent
CRL.A. 576 Of 2024
Decided On : 14-11-2024
(A) National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 - Section 21(4) - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Bail application - The appellant, charged under UAPA, sought bail citing undue delay in trial and lack of prima facie evidence against him. The court found that the prosecution's case relied heavily on circumstantial evidence and the appellant had been in custody for over four years with only a few witnesses examined. The court granted bail, emphasizing the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. (Paras 10, 20, 22)
(B) Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 - Sections 17, 18, 40 - The court noted that the prosecution failed to establish a direct link between the appellant and the alleged terrorist activities, highlighting the need for substantial evidence to justify continued detention. (Paras 10, 12, 18)
Facts of the case:
The appellant was accused of attempting to transfer funds to a terrorist operative, but the prosecution's evidence was primarily circumstantial, with no direct involvement established. The appellant had been in custody since 10.11.2019, and the trial was expected to take considerable time.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the appellant met the criteria for bail under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA, given the lack of prima facie evidence and the prolonged detention without trial.
Issues: The main issues were whether the appellant could be granted bail despite the serious charges and the adequacy of the evidence presented by the prosecution.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the presumption of innocence must prevail, and the prosecution's evidence did not sufficiently establish the appellant's guilt at this stage.
Result: Appeal allowed; bail granted.
JUDGMENT :
(Amit Sharma, J.)
1. The present appeal under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (for short, ‘CrPC’) seeks the following prayers: -
b) pass such further orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit.”
2. The case of the NIA-Respondent against the present Appellant, as per the reply dated 21.08.2024, filed to the present appeal is as under: -
2. That, the case has been registered based on the allegations that the proscribed terrorist outfit Laskar-e-Taiba (LeT) based in Pakistan has activated its network based in UAE, to send money to LeT operatives, based in India for reconnaissance of targets for carrying out attacks. One of the LeT operatives operating in India has been identified as Shiekh Abdul Naeem@ Sohail Khan (A-1 ), who has already established his base in Bihar, Odisha, UP and Jammu and Kashmir and is on the lookout for possible targets in and around Delhi. He has also established contacts with other LeT operatives in India, UAE and is regularly taking directions from Amzad@ Rehan (A-8), LeT commander based in Pakistan and in charge of operations in India, Bangladesh, Nepal, and Maldives. On 28.11.2017, accused Shaikh Abdul Naeem @ Sohel Khan (A-1) was arrested at Charbagh, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh. He was arrested for his involvement in raising funds from the main operatives of Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) based Pakistan for terrorist activities in India.
3. During investigation, it was established that accused Bedar Bakht @ Dhannu Raja (A-2), Towseef Ahmad Malik @ Tipu (A-3), Mafooz Alam, Habib Ur Rehman (A-9) and Amzad @ Rehan @ Abdullah Rashid @ Abdul Aziz @ Wali (A-8) had arranged shelter, logistics, mobile phones to accused Shaikh Abdul Naeem@ Sohel Khan (A-1), raised funds for the him and had also facilitated him in engaging fake identity as Sonu/Sohel Khan who is actually Shaikh Abdul Naeem (A-1).
4. That, Shaikh Abdul Naeem@ Sohail Khan (A-1), previously sentenced to capital punishment for possession of special category of explosives vide judgement dated 11.12.2018 by fast-track court 1, At Bongaon, North 24 Parganas U/S 419/420/468/469/471/121/121A/122/124A/120B in Case No. 179/2007 ofBongaon PS dated 04.04.2007.
5. That, during investigation of the present case, it was revealed that accused/appellant Javed Ali @Javed (A-11) son of Mohammad Imran, resident of Village- Khampur, Post Office- Khudda, Police StationChapar, District- Muzaffamagar, Uttar Pradesh went to Riyad, Saudi Arabia on work permit and he came in to contact with accused Gul Nawaz (Accused now discharged, hereinafter read as AD-10) (AD-10) resident of Phulas, Muzaffamagar, Uttar Pradesh, who was working as a taxi driver at Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
6. Investigation revealed that in the year 2017, accused/appellant Javed (A-11) came into contact with one Zakir, resident of Pakistan, Zakir told the accused Javed Ali @Javed (A-11), that he wanted to send Rs. 3,50,000/- (Rupees Three Lakh Fifty Thousand) to India to Accused Shiekh Abdul Naeem @ Sohail Khan (A-1) a
The presumption of innocence prevails, and lack of substantial evidence justifies bail under UAPA despite serious charges.
The court emphasized the importance of prima facie evidence, the right to a speedy trial, and the lack of incriminating material in the possession of the accused.
Prolonged incarceration without a speedy trial can warrant bail, while serious allegations under UAPA can justify denial.
Prolonged incarceration and nature of allegations allow for bail under UAPA, balancing statutory provisions with constitutional rights.
(1) Bail application – Exercise of general power to grant bail under UAP Act is severely restrictive in scope – In dealing with bail applications under UAP Act, courts are merely examining if there i....
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
