The court emphasized that constitutional rights to liberty prevail when trials are unduly prolonged, allowing bail despite serious terrorism charges.

JUDGMENT :

K. V. Jayakumar, J.

This Criminal Appeal has been preferred under Section 21 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008.

2. The present appeal is preferred by accused No. 39, challenging the order passed by the Special Court for the Trial of NIA Cases, Ernakulam, in Crl.M.P. No. 318 of 2024 in S.C. No. 02 of 2023/NIA dated 31.08.2024.

3. In the above case, the appellant stands 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. Section 149 IPC r/w. 302 IPC, Section 3 (a),(b),(d) r/w Section 7 of the Religious Institutions (Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1988, Sections 13, 16, 18, 18A, 18B, 20, 22C, 23, 38 and 29 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 [for the sake of brevity, ‘UA(P) Act] and Section 25 (1) (a) of the Arms Act, 1959.

4. Brief facts necessary for the consideration of the appeal are as follows:

4.1. 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.

4.2 The intelligence revealed that PFI members and office bearers based in Kerala, many of whom had earlier association 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 also members of these banned terrorist groups.

4.3 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 and thereby instilling fear, terror, and a sense of insecurity among members of other communities.

4.4 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 and thereby undermining the sovereignty and integrity of India.

4.5 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.

4.6. Being satisfied that the above acts had serious ramifications for national security, the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, CTCR Division, vide O