IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., K.V. JAYAKUMAR
Seyid Nabeel Ahammed S/o Kunji Seethi Thangal – Appellant
Versus
Union of India, Represented by Inspector of Police, Kochi – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
K.V. Jayakumar, J.
1. This appeal has been preferred by accused No.2 against the order of the Special Court for the Trial of NIA Cases, Ernakulam dated 11.04.2025 in Crl.M.P.No.106/2025 in S.C.No.1/2024/NIA. By the impugned order, the learned Special Judge dismissed the bail application filed by the appellant/accused No.2.
Prosecution Case
2. The prosecution case as revealed from the final report is as follows:
2.1 The Central Government received credible information that, an ISIS/IS-KP Module was working secretly with the purpose of committing acts prejudicial to the sovereignty and integrity of India by conspiring to target certain prominent members of society and religious places of the other communities to commit terrorist acts and to create communal disharmony in the society. As part of the larger conspiracy to further the activities of the ISIS/IS-KP, a proscribed terrorist organization, the members of the module identified gullible Muslim youths and radicalized them through encrypted communication channels to join ISIS/IS-KP. In order to raise funds for furthering the activities of ISIS/IS-KP, they have committed criminal/illegal activities.
2.2 The Central Government w
Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra
Jalaluddin Khan v. Union of India
Ashraf @ Ashraf Moulavi v. Union of India
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India
Tarun Kumar v. Assistant Director Directorate of Enforcement
E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu
The principle of parity in bail applications allows for equality among co-accused, emphasizing the right to a speedy trial and the unjust nature of prolonged incarceration without conviction.
Under UA(P) Act Section 43D(5), bail denied if charge-sheet shows prima facie true accusations of terrorist gang involvement; custody/delay insufficient absent changed circumstances; parity only for ....
Bail under the U.A.P. Act requires prima facie assessment of allegations; long custody or parity with co-accused do not automatically justify release.
Prolonged incarceration without trial may violate constitutional rights, enabling courts to grant bail, highlighting the balance between individual liberty and the severity of charges.
Prolonged pre-trial detention without reasonable trial prospects warrants constitutional safeguards, allowing for bail despite stringent statutory requirements under UAPA.
Prolonged pre-trial detention violates the right to life and liberty; bail may be granted even for serious charges if trial delay is substantial.
In cases under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, bail may be denied if there is prima facie evidence of serious criminal involvement linked to national security threats.
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....
The court upheld the denial of bail to an accused charged with harboring a terrorist, emphasizing the severity of the allegations and the necessity of ensuring justice and public safety.
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.
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.