IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
K. LAKSHMAN, B.R. MADHUSUDHAN RAO, JJ.
Mohammed AbdutAhad @alias MA Ahad
Versus
Union of India
Criminal Appeal Nos. 923, 924 of 2025, Criminal Appeal No. 931 of 2024
Decided On : 09-10-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. introduction of the case and parties involved. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. details of allegations against the appellants. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. details regarding the charge sheet and previous bail orders. (Para 6 , 7 , 15) |
| 4. appellants' claims and nia's counterarguments regarding bail. (Para 9 , 11) |
| 5. examination of earlier court judgments in similar contexts. (Para 12 , 18 , 19) |
| 6. specific allegations and evidence against accused no.2. (Para 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 7. specific allegations and evidence against accused no.3. (Para 23 , 24 , 25) |
| 8. court's observations regarding abscondence and principle of parity. (Para 26 , 27 , 33) |
| 9. legal principles regarding bail and parity. (Para 28 , 29 , 30) |
| 10. final dismissal of criminal appeals. (Para 34) |
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 153A of IPC and Sections - 13 (1) (b), 17, 18, 18-A and 18-B of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act,1967 (for short ‘ UAPA , 1967’), and the offences alleged against the appellant - accused No.4 are under Sections - 120B, 121(A), 153-A & 141 read with 34 IPC and Sections -13(1)(b), 18-A & 18-B of the UAPA , 1967.
5. The allegations levelled against the appellants herein are as follows:
i) With regard to accused No.2, he is the State General Secretary of Popular Front of India (PFI) for Telangana. He was recruiting impressionable Muslim Youth into PFI by instigating them against the leaders of Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) / Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and other Hindu Organizations. He was motivating these Muslim Youth for violent Jihad and unlawful activities. After recruiting them into PFI, accused No.2 sent them to Terror Camps organized by PFI at different places wherein newly joined PFI Members were given weapons training and abetted to assassinate the leaders of BJP/RSS/Durga Vahini/Shivaji Sena and other Hindu organizations by attacking them on vital body parts with dangerous weapons such as knife and sickle.
ii) With regard to accused No.3, he is a hardcore PF1 Cadre and Physical Efficiency (PE) Instructor for basic and advance/secondary training course run by PFI in its terror camps. He was imparting physical training to the newly recruited PFI members wherein he trained them in the use of dangerous weapons, such as knife, iron rods and sickle, better known with the secret terminology of the three books i.e., Book-1, Book-2 and Book-3, to murder a person by attacking his vital body parts. It was revealed from the statements of witnesses that this training was being given as preparation to commit violent terrorist activities and assassinating the leaders of RSS/BJP/Bajrang Dal, Durga Vahini and other Hindu organizations.
iii) With regard to accused No.4 he is also a hardcore PFI Cadre in Jagtial District and he was recruiting impressionable Muslim Youth into PFI by instigating them against the leaders of B
Jalaluddin Khan v. Union of India
Union of India Rep. by the Inspector of Police, NIC, Chennai Branch v. Barakathullah
AI
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....
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 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.
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.