Under anti-terror and organized crime statutes, if the prosecution's material reveals a prima facie nexus between the accused and the criminal syndicate, the court must apply statutory restrictions against granting bail, prioritizing national security and trial integrity over the individual's liberty.

JUDGMENT (PER : KAMAL KHATA, J.) :-

1) By this Appeal, the Appellant seeks to quash and set aside the Order dated 5th December, 2024 passed by the Hon’ble Special (Spl) National Investigating Agency (NIA) Court in NIA Spl Case No.1409 of 2022. Consequently, the Appellant seeks his release on bail in NIA Spl Case No.1409 of 2022, on such terms and conditions that the Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper.

Prosecution’s Case:

2) Between 2008 and 2018, acting on instructions of the head of D-Company, the Appellant allegedly threatened and extorted approximately Rs.16 crores from PW-4.

2.1) On 3rd February, 2022, the NIA registered an FIR bearing No.RC–01/2022/NIA/Mum for offences punishable under Sections 17, 18, 20, 21, 38 and 40 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA), read with Section 201, 387 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) along with Section 3(1)(ii), 3(2), 3(4) and 3(5) of the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 (MCOC Act) on the basis of reliable information received from the Ministry of Home Affairs, Delhi, against the D-Company allegedly headed by Dawood Ibrahim Kaskar.

2.2) On 29th April, 2022, the Appellant allegedly received Rs.25 lakhs from a hawala operator in Malad, Mumbai, pursuant to instructions of Accused No.1, Mr. Arif Shaikh. The prosecution alleges that this Rs.25 lakhs constituted proceeds of terrorism, intended for furthering terrorist activities and larger conspiratorial acts in Mumbai. Out of this amount, Rs.20 lakhs was allegedly handed over to Arif Shaikh, while Rs.5 lakhs was retained by the Appellant.

2.3) During a house search on 9th May, 2022, the investigating agency allegedly recovered and seized Rs.5 lakhs from the Appellant’s residence. A signal/blank pistol, resembling a real firearm, was also allegedly recovered from the Appellant’s residence and is claimed to have been used for threats and extortion for the benefit of D-Company. The search was conducted at the premise of the Appellant under Section 165 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). The Appellant came to be arrested on 12th May, 2022 at the behest of Respondent No. 1.

3) The first bail application of the Appellant came to be rejected by the Special Court by an Order dated 21st July, 2022, principally on the ground that the investigation was incomplete and that there existed a possibility of Appellant tampering with prosecution's evidence and influencing witness, thereby impeding the filing of the charge-sheet against the Appellant. Thereafter, the second bail application was also rejected by the learned Spl. Judge, NIA by an Order dated 5th December, 2024. Being aggrieved thereby, the present Appeal has been preferred.

4) Mr. Karnik, learned Advocate for the Appellant, submitted that, the Appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. According to him, the Appellant is a businessman engaged in property dealings for several years. In so far as the statement of PW-2, PW-6 and PW-11 pertaining to the alleged transaction of Rs. 25 lakhs in April 2022, is concerned, Rs. 5 lakhs recovered was reserved for carrying out business purposes and for ‘jakat’ and not for funding terrorism or terrorist activities. According to him, the evidence placed on record does not establish that the Appellant had knowledge that the said amount was to be used for terrorist acts, which is a sine qua non under Section 17 of the UAPA. It is further contended that, the statements, narrations, discussions and disclosures of PW-2, PW-4, PW-5, PW-6 and PW-11 pertain to the alleged transactions committed between the years 1999 to 2019 and th