IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., P.V. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ.
Nassar S/o Mammy - Appellant
Versus
Union of India Represented by Superintendent of Police, Kochi - Respondent
Crl. Appeal Nos. 225, 228, 242 of 2025
Decided On : 02-04-2025
(A) National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 - Section 21 - Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 - Sections 13, 18, 18B, 39 - Religious Institutions (Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1988 - Sections 3(a)(b)(d) - Criminal conspiracy and terrorism - Accused charged with conspiracy to commit terrorist acts and inciting communal violence through the Popular Front of India (PFI) - Allegations include recruitment for terrorist organizations and inciting hatred - Bail applications denied by Special Court - Appeals filed against denial of bail. (Paras 1 - 14 )
(B) Bail - Considerations for grant - Long pre-trial detention and likelihood of trial delay - Court emphasized the need for a pragmatic approach in cases of prolonged incarceration without a reasonable prospect of trial completion - Statutory restrictions under UAPA do not preclude constitutional courts from granting bail in violation of fundamental rights. (Paras 8 .1-8.6)
Facts of the case:
The accused, members of PFI, were implicated in a conspiracy to commit terrorist acts, including the murder of a political leader, with allegations of maintaining operational links with banned terrorist organizations. The Central Government directed the NIA to investigate based on credible intelligence regarding PFI's activities.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the appellants had been in custody for extended periods, with no immediate prospect of trial due to the volume of evidence and witnesses.
Issues: The main issues included the nature of the conspiracy, the role of the accused, and the implications of prolonged detention without trial.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the lengthy pre-trial detention and lack of direct evidence against the accused warranted a reconsideration of bail, emphasizing the constitutional right to a speedy trial.
Result: Appeals allowed; bail granted with conditions.
JUDGMENT :
Raja Vijayaraghavan, J.
1. These Criminal Appeals have been preferred under Section 21 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008.
2. Crl. Appeal No. 225 of 2025 is preferred by the accused Nos. 25, 27, 31 and 32, Crl. Appeal No. 228 of 2025 is preferred by the accused No. 33 and Crl. Appeal No. 242 of 2025 is preferred by the accused Nos. 29, 30 and 51 in S.C.No.2/2023/NIA on the file of the Special Court for Trial of NIA Cases, Ernakulam.
3. In the above case, they, along with the rest of the accused, stand indicted for having committed offences punishable under sections 120B, 34, 109, 115, 118, 119, 143, 144, 147, 148, 449, 153A, 341, 302, 201, 212 r/w.s. 149, 120B r/w.s. 302 of IPC, Section 3(a)(b)(d) r/w. Section 7 of the Religious Institutions (Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1988 and Sections 13, 16, 18, 18A, 18B, 20, 22C, 23, 38 & 39 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and Section 25 (1) (a) of the Arms Act, 1959.
4. By the order passed by the learned Special Court, the applications for bail preferred by the appellants were dismissed.
5. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
5.1. The Central Government received credible and actionable intelligence indicating that the office bearers, members, and cadres of the Popular Front of India (PFI)—a registered society—and its affiliated organisations in Kerala had conspired to instigate communal violence and radicalise their cadres to commit terrorist acts in the State of Kerala and other parts of the country.
5.2 The intelligence revealed that PFI members and office bearers based in Kerala, many of whom had earlier s with the proscribed terrorist organisation SIMI (Students Islamic Movement of India), maintained operational linkages with other internationally proscribed terrorist organisations such as Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS)/Daesh, and Al-Qaeida. Some members of the PFI cadres were themselves members of these banned terrorist groups.
5.3 It was revealed that the PFI had allegedly created an organised network with the objective of recruiting vulnerable Muslim youth into proscribed international terrorist organisations to facilitate the commission of terrorist acts. Moreover, PFI and its members were reportedly engaged in activities prejudicial to public order and harmony by inciting hatred between different religious communities through incendiary speeches, publications, articles, and social media posts. Their actions were aimed at disrupting public tranquillity, and evidence pointed to organised movements intending to train participants in the use of criminal force against individuals of other religions or groups—thereby instilling fear, terror, and a sense of insecurity among members of other communities.
5.4 The PFI and its members were allegedly responsible for several violent incidents and murders in Kerala, which created a sense of terror in the minds of the general public. Additionally, it is alleged that PFI, its office bearers, and its members were indulging in unlawful activities with the intent to foment disaffection against the Indian State by provoking individuals, especially innocent members of the Muslim community, to defy the Government and institutions established by law—thereby undermining the sovereignty and integrity of India.
5.5 Based on the above facts and the gravity of the allegations, the Central Government formed the opinion that the activities of the Popular Front of India attracted offences punishable under Sections 120B and 153A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Sections 13, 18, 18B, 38, and 39 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, which are scheduled offences under the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008.
5.6. Being satisfied that the above acts had serious ramifications for national security, the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, CTCR Division, vide Order No. 11011/82/2022-NIA dated 16.09.2022, directed the National Investigation Agency (NIA) to take up the inv
Prolonged pre-trial detention without trial completion justifies bail, emphasizing constitutional rights over statutory restrictions.
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.
The court may grant bail despite statutory restrictions under the UAPA if the accused's right to a speedy trial under Article 21 is infringed due to prolonged detention without reasonable trial prosp....
The court emphasized that constitutional rights to liberty prevail when trials are unduly prolonged, allowing bail despite serious terrorism charges.
(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....
(1) Grant of bail – Question of discarding material or document at stage of considering bail application of accused on the ground of being not reliable or inadmissible in evidence, is not permissible....
The court emphasized that in terrorism-related cases, the gravity of charges and evidence against the accused necessitate denial of bail under Section 43D(5) of the UA(P) Act.
Bail cannot be granted for offences under Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 unless Court comes to conclusion that there is no prima facie case against accused.
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....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.