SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Mad) 3149

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.S. SUNDAR, SUNDER MOHAN, JJ.
Barakathullah & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Union of India rep.by the Inspector of Police, National Investigation Agency, Chennai - Respondent
CRLA.Nos. 98, 114 & 116of 2023 & CRL.MP.Nos. 11595 & 8094 of 2023
Decided On : 19-10-2023

Advocates appeared: For the Appellants :T. Mohan, Senior Counsel for A. Raja Mohamed, Advocate, I. Abdul Basith, Advocate. For the Respondents: Ar.L. Sundaresan, Additional Solicitor General assisted by R. Karthikeyan, Special Public Prosecutor.

The absence of direct evidence linking accused to terrorist activities undermines prima facie accusations, warranting bail despite membership in a banned organization.

Headnote:(A) National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 - Section 21(4) - Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 - Sections 8, 13, 17, 18, 18B, 38, 39, and 43D(5) - Bail applications dismissed by Special Court on grounds of prima facie case against accused for membership and activities in a banned organization - The Court emphasized the necessity of specific evidence of terrorist acts or direct involvement under UAPA provisions - The absence of clear accusations and evidence in support of charges against appellants led to the conclusion that detention was unjustified and bail should be granted. (Paras 10, 41, 43, and 55)

(B) Legal principles highlighted include: the standard for granting bail being the necessity of clear and compelling evidence of criminal acts, mere membership in an organization does not suffice; general allegations do not meet the threshold for denying bail when robust evidence is lacking. (Paras 40-42)

Facts of the case:
The appeals concern bail applications of several individuals, arrested in connection with terrorist conspiracies linked to an organization that was banned post-arrest. The appellants contended that no substantive claim was laid against them, citing a lack of specific details regarding their involvement in any terrorist activities. (Paras 5, 8, 9, and 10)

Findings of Court:
The Court observed that allegations were largely unfounded and lacked specific instances connecting the appellants to terrorism. They were not shown to have committed an offense under UAPA. The Court allowed the appeals, granting bail subject to conditions to ensure their cooperation in ongoing investigations. (Paras 55)

Issues: Whether the second FIR was valid given the circumstances of the first, and whether the NIA had jurisdiction without a State Government report.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court ruled that lack of demonstrable evidence for terrorism-related charges precludes denial of bail, and reiterated constitutional safeguards against wrongful detention.

Result: Criminal Appeals allowed; bail granted with conditions.

Table of Content
1. overview of the case and criminal appeals (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. facts pertaining to the organization's alleged activities (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
3. accused's arguments against their arrests and allegations (Para 8 , 9)
4. prosecution's narrative and materials collected (Para 10 , 11)
5. defense strategies based on absence of evidence (Para 12 , 13 , 14)
6. witness testimonies and their implications (Para 15 , 16 , 17)
7. legal arguments regarding fir procedures (Para 18 , 19)
8. evidence's relevance to allegations of terrorism (Para 20 , 21 , 22)
9. constitutional balance between rights and law enforcement (Para 23 , 24 , 27)
10. statutory interpretation of provisions under uapa (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31)
11. court's rationale regarding bail considerations (Para 32 , 33)
12. final considerations leading to conclusion about bail (Para 34 , 35 , 36)
13. court's interpretation of prima facie evidence under uapa. (Para 38)
14. conclusion and grant of bail to appellants (Para 54 , 55 , 56)

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 21[4] of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008,`against the impugned order passed by the learned Special Court under the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, [Sessions Court for Exclusive Trial of Bomb Blast Cases, Poonamallee, Chennai] in bail application in Crl.MP.No.742/2022 in RC.No.42/2022/NIA/DLI dated 03.01.2023 pending on the file of the respondent. Criminal Appeal filed under Section 21[4] of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008,`to set aside the order passed in Crl.MP.No.722/2022 dated 03.01.2023 on the file of the Special Court under the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, Sessions Court for Exclusive Trial for Bomb Blast Cases, Chennai at Poonamallee, Chennai and grant bail to the appellants in Rc.No.42/2022/NIA/DLI pending on the file of the respondent.)

COMMON JUDGMENT

S.S. SUNDAR, J.

(1) All the above three Criminal Appeals are connected and arising out of the proceedings in relation to RC.No.42/2022/NIA/DLI involving common issues and hence, the Appeals are taken up together for hearing and are disposed of by this common judgment.

(2) Totally, there are 13 named accused and other unknown accused in RC.No.42/2022/NIA/DLI.

(3) Crl.A.No.98/2023 is filed by the appellant who is arrayed as A7 out of 13 named accused, against the order passed by the Special Court under the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, which is also the Sessions Court for Exclusive Trial for Bomb Blast Cases, Chennai at Poonamallee, dated 03.01.2023 in Crl.MP.No.742/2022 in RC.No.42/2022/NIA/DLI, dismissing the bail application filed for bail under Section 43 7 read with 439 of Cr.P.C. and 43[D] of the Unlawful Activities [Prevention] Act, 1967 [hereinafter referred to as UAPA ]. Crl.A.Nos.114 and 16/2023 are preferred by A1, A3, A4 [Crl.A.No.114/2023], A5, A6, A8 and A9 [Crl.A.No.116/2023] against the order passed in Crl.MP.No.722/2022 dismissing the bail applications filed by them under Section 43 7 read with 439 of Cr.P.C. and 43[D] of UAPA .

(4) Brief facts that are leading to the above three appeals are as follows:-

(5) It appears that the Central Government has received information that the office bearers, members and cadres of an Organization known as ‘’Popular Front of India [hereinafter referred to as PFI] having its registered office at New Delhi and its Unit office all over India, along with others are conspiring and collecting funds within India and abroad for committing terrorist act in various parts of India including States of Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Uttar Pradesh etc. The First Information Report was registered in RC.No.14/2022 on 13.04.2022. The complaint was registered against 21 named individuals and other unknown persons by the National Investigation Agency [hereinafter referred to as NIA] before the Police Station, NIA, New Delhi, for offences under Sections 120B and 153A of IPC and under Sections 17 , 18, 18B, 20, 22B, 38 and 39 of UAPA . Following that, another

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top