Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.B. SURESH KUMAR, HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE M.B. SNEHALATHA, JJ.
Saheer E.P. S/o Mohammed Shafi – Appellant
Versus
National Investigation Agency, Ernakulam – Respondent
Crl. Appeal No. 673 of 2024
Decided On : 19-07-2024
NIA Act - Bail Application - NIA Act, 2008, Section 21; UAPA, 1967, Sections 19, 43D(5) - The court discussed the restrictions on bail under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA, which prohibits bail if there are reasonable grounds to believe the accusation is prima facie true. The court interpreted Section 19 of the UAPA regarding the punishment for harboring a terrorist, emphasizing the necessity of knowledge of the accused's terrorist activities. The court concluded that the appellant's actions indicated knowledge of the second accused's involvement in terrorism, thus justifying the denial of bail.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, arrested on 09.01.2024, sought bail after being implicated in a case involving an ISIS module in India. He was accused of harboring the second accused, who was involved in terrorist activities, by providing him with a hideout and logistics despite knowing his background.
Finding of the Court:
The court found reasonable grounds to believe that the appellant knowingly harbored a terrorist, as he had close ties with the second accused and facilitated his stay and communication. The court upheld the Special Court's decision to deny bail based on the prima facie evidence presented.
Issues: Whether the appellant had knowledge of the second accused's terrorist activities while providing him shelter and whether the restrictions under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA applied to deny bail.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the prima facie evidence indicated the appellant's knowledge of the second accused's terrorist affiliations, justifying the denial of bail under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA. The interpretation of Section 19 of the UAPA clarified that knowledge of the accused's terrorist status is essential for conviction under that section.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, affirming the Special Court's order denying bail to the appellant based on the evidence of his complicity in harboring a terrorist.
JUDGMENT :
P.B. Suresh Kumar, J.
1. This appeal is preferred invoking Section 21 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (NIA Act) challenging an order passed by the Special Court for Trial of NIA cases, Ernakulam (the Special Court), dismissing an application for bail submitted by the appellant who is the fifth accused in RC No. 02/2023/NIA/KOC.
2. The appellant was arrested on 09.01.2024 and immediately thereupon the final report in the case was filed on 12.01.2024. The materials placed on record indicate that the Central Government had received credible information that an ISIS/IS-KP Module, a proscribed terrorist organization, was working in secrecy for the purpose of committing acts prejudicial to the sovereignty and integrity of India by conspiring to target certain prominent members of the society and religious places of other communities to commit terrorist acts and create communal disharmony in the society; that as part of the larger conspiracy of the ISIS/IS-KP, the members of the module identified gullible Muslim youths and radicalised them through encrypted communication channels to join ISIS/IS-KP and that in order to raise funds for furthering the activities of ISIS/IS-KP, they have committed various criminal and illegal activities. The materials placed on record also reveal that the Central Government was of the opinion that the above activities would have serious ramifications and accordingly, the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India vide order F.No. 11011/58/2023/NIA dated 10.07.2023 directed the NIA to take up investigation of the matter, and the subject case was registered and investigated accordingly by the NIA.
3. It is alleged in the final report that the second accused being an active cadre of Popular Front of India (PFI) involved in several violent criminal activities of PFI, got himself associated with India Fraternity Forum (IFF), the overseas forum of PFI while in Qatar since 2012; that he subscribed to the violent jihadi ideologies of ISIS while in Qatar; that he conspired with the first accused to return to India and to establish an ISIS module in Kerala to recruit gullible youths to the module and he established an ISIS module in Kerala accordingly and recruited several persons in the module for furthering the activities of ISIS. It is also alleged in the final report that the second accused along with accused 1, 3 and 4 started recruiting others to ISIS module in Kerala and he has, along with others, committed several crimes to raise funds for pro-ISIS activities. It was also alleged in the final report that the second accused and others conducted recce of Hindu Temples and prominent persons of other communities for targeting as well as for looting and that the second accused propagated ISIS ideology through the social media, secret communication platforms and in person. The offences alleged against the second accused in the final report are offences punishable under Sections 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 20, 38 and 39 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (the UAPA).
4. The allegation against the appellant in the final report is that he harboured the second accused from 22nd July, 2023 onwards when the second accused was hiding, despite it being widely publicised in newspapers as also media that the second accused was involved in terrorist activities, by wilfully arranging a hideout and finance for the second accused and also arranging logistics such as mobile phone, SIM cards etc. for the use of second accused. The offences alleged against the appellant in the final report are the offences punishable under Section 212 of IPC and Section 19 of the UAPA.
5. The appellant does not dispute the fact that he knows the second accused and that he had monetary transactions with the close relatives of the second accused for quite a long time. The appellant also does not dispute the fact that he arranged for a room in a lodge in his name in the proximity of his house a
The court established that under the UAPA, knowledge of a person's terrorist activities is crucial for liability under Section 19, and the restrictions on bail under Section 43D(5) apply when there a....
The requirement to provide written grounds of arrest is mandatory under Article 22(1) of the Constitution, and failure to comply renders the arrest illegal.
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) Bail – Successive bail applications are not barred per se, but they can be entertained only if there is a demonstrable change in circumstances since rejection of previous application.(2) Prior to....
(1) Arrest – Any person arrested for allegation of commission of offences under provisions of UAPA or any other offences has a fundamental and a statutory right to be informed about grounds of arrest....
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.
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.
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
