Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
UJJAIR AHMAD @ OZAIR AHMED – Appellant
Versus
NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
Background
2. The present appeal has been filed by the Appellant under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency, 2008 (hereinafter ‘NIA Act’) read with Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 challenging the impugned order dated 19th September, 2024 by which his bail application has been rejected.
3. An FIR, being RC No.06/2012/NIA/DLI, was registered by the NIA on 10th September, 2012 at PS NIA, New Delhi for various offences under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (hereinafter ‘UAPA’) against certain persons which did not include the Appellant herein. Thereafter, chargesheet was filed in the said FIR on 17th March 2013 which only charged five accused persons. However, when the supplementary chargesheet was filed on 20th February, 2014, further accused persons were added including A-9 – Ujjair Ahmad @ Ozair who is the Appellant herein.
4. The Appellant was arrested on 30th October, 2013. He was charge-sheeted under Sections 17, 18, 19, 38(2), 39(2) and 40(2) of the UAPA. The Appellant had sought regular bail before the Special NIA Court which was, however, rejected in the following terms:
“xx
Prolonged incarceration and nature of allegations allow for bail under UAPA, balancing statutory provisions with constitutional rights.
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.
Using as genuine a forged document or electronic record - Bail granted - Clause (b) of section 21(4) of MCOC Act it becomes evident that it contains an interdict against grant of bail unless Court sa....
(1) Statutory restriction like Section 43-D(5) of UAPA per se does not operate as an impediment on powers of Constitutional Court to grant bail, if a case of infringement of constitutional guarantee ....
The presumption of innocence prevails, and lack of substantial evidence justifies bail under UAPA despite serious charges.
Prolonged detention without trial can violate the right to a speedy trial, qualifying an accused for bail under Article 21, despite serious charges linking them to anti-national activities.
(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....
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
