Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
K.LAKSHMAN, B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO
Mohammed AbdutAhad @alias MA Ahad – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
K. LAKSHMAN, J.
1. Heard Mr. V. Raghunath, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. T. Rahul, learned counsel for the appellants - accused Nos.2 and 3 in Crl.A. Nos. 923 and 924 of 2025, Mr. Muzafferullah Khan, learned counsel for the appellant - accused No.4 in Crl.A. No.931 of 2024 and Mr. P. Vishnuvardhan Reddy, learned Special Public Prosecutor for National Investigation Agency (NIA) appearing on behalf of the respondent.
2. These Criminal Appeals are filed under Section - 21 of the National Investigation Agency (NIA) Act, 2008 by the appellants herein. The appellants herein are arraigned as accused Nos.2 to 4 respectively in Spl. S.C. NO.01 of 2023.
3. Vide impugned orders dated 02.06.2025. 22.07.2025 and20.09.2024 in Crl.M.P.No.446 of 2025 in Spl. S.C. No.04 of 2023, Crl.M.P. No.507 of 2025 in Spl. S.C. No.04 of 2023 and Crl.M.P.No.1215 of 2024 in Spl. S.C. No.01 of 2023, respectively, learned IV Additional Sessions Judge - cum - Special Court for NIA Cases, Nampally, Hyderabad (for short ‘Designated Court’), dismissed the bail applications filed by the appellants.
4. The offences alleged against the appellants herein - accused Nos.2 and 3 are under Sections - 120B and 1
The denial of bail based on serious allegations, abscondence, and the need for judicial discretion to maintain public order governs the principle of parity in bail applications.
(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....
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.
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....
Prolonged pre-trial detention without trial completion justifies bail, emphasizing constitutional rights over statutory restrictions.
The court upheld the denial of bail under the UAP Act, emphasizing the serious nature of the charges and the prima facie evidence against the appellant.
The court reiterated that under the UAPA, bail is the exception, emphasizing the prima facie strength of allegations against the accused involved in financing a terrorist organization.
Bail is denied in cases involving serious charges under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act due to the appellant's criminal antecedents and status as an absconder, despite claims of parity with ....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
