IMPORTANT POINT
The right to a fair trial mandates the provision of physical copies of documents to the accused, and undue delay in trial can justify bail even under stringent provisions of the UAPA.

JUDGMENT :

P.V. BALAKRISHNAN, J.

All these appeals have been filed by the first accused in SC No.1/2024 (arising out of RC No.2/2023/NIA/KOC) on the files of the Special Court for the trial of NIA cases, Ernakulam.

2. Criminal Appeal No.259/2024 is filed challenging the order dated 11/1/2024 in Crl.M.P.No.8/2024, Criminal Appeal 275/2024 is filed challenging the order dated 19/1/2024 in Crl.M.P.No.34/2024 and Criminal Appeal No.2271/2024 is filed challenging the order dated 20/9/2024 in Crl.M.P.No.219/2024 passed by the Special Court for the trial of NIA cases, Ernakulam.

3. Criminal M.P.No.8/2024 is an application filed by the prosecution seeking permission for providing digital copies of documents instead of paper copies along with the charge sheet. The said application was allowed by the trial court as per order dated 11/1/2024.

4. Crl.M.P.No.34/2024 is an application filed by the first accused seeking default bail. The said application was dismissed by the trial court on 19/1/2024.

5. Crl.M.P.No.219/2024 is an application filed by the first accused seeking regular bail. The same was also dismissed by the trial court on 20/9/2024.

6. The prosecution case is that the first accused, being an active arms and physically trained cadre of PFI and having involved in the murder of a prominent RSS/BJP leader in 2008, got acquainted with the second accused who is associated with India Fraternity Forum while in Qatar during 2012. Thereafter, he willingly subscribed to violent jihadi ideologies and conspired with the second accused to join ISIS. When it did not materialise, they conspired to return to India and establish an ISIS module in Kerala and recruit gullible youths to the module. After returning to India in 2017, the first accused established the module and recruited the third accused and attempted to recruit the 4th accused to the module. The first and second accused also conspired and committed crimes to raise funds for pro-ISIS activities along with the third accused and conducted recce of Hindu Temples and prominent persons of other communities for targeting, as well as looting them. They also propagated ISIS ideology through social media and other platforms. Hence, the prosecution alleges that the first accused has committed the offences punishable under Section 120B of IPC and Sections 20, 38 & 39 of The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967(hereinafter referred to as 'the UAPA' for short).

7. The learned Counsel for the appellant/first accused Adv.E.A.Haris contended that Crl.M.P.No.8/2024 was filed by the prosecution on 5/1/2024 and the same was allowed by the trial court on 11/1/2024, without hearing the appellant. He submitted that the appellant, being in jail, cannot be expected to defend his case effectively without having been served a physical copy of the final report and other relevant documents, as contemplated under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. He submitted that even though as per the order of the trial court the accused was handed over a soft copy of these documents in a pen drive on 22/1/2024, without any authentication, no purpose has been served since the appellant, who is in jail, has not been provided with computers or other gadgets to open the pen drive and go through the documents. He argued that the afore order passed by the trial court permitting the prosecution to serve the documents in electronic form, has caused considerable prejudice to the appellant resulting in denial of fair trial. He further contended that the appellant has filed Crl.M.P.No.34/2024 on 15/1/2024 and the final report was filed on 12/1/2024 in physical form, without sufficient copies of the same for serving them to the accused. He argued that the final report thus filed was defective and the trial court erred in not complying with Rules 19 and Rule 68 of the Criminal Rules of Practice. Hence, he submitted that as on 19/1/2024, when his application for default bail was considered, there was no valid charge sheet in terms of Section 173 of