Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 11548
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Sreenivas Harish Kumar, J
Accused No.26 – Appellant
Versus
National Investigation Agency – Respondent
Appeal under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sri Mohammed Tahir
For the Respondents: Sri P.Prasanna Kumar
The court upheld the denial of bail under UAPA, emphasizing the importance of societal interests over individual liberty in cases involving terrorism-related offenses.
Headnote:(A) National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 - Section 21(4) - Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 - Sections 19 and 43D(5) - Bail application - Allegations of harboring accused involved in murder - The appellant challenged the denial of bail, arguing lack of prima facie evidence and violation of constitutional rights. The court found sufficient evidence of involvement and upheld the denial of bail under UAPA, emphasizing societal interests over individual liberty. (Paras 2, 16, 22, 23)
(B) Bail - The court assessed whether accusations against the appellant were prima facie true, establishing that the provisions of UAPA apply based on the nature of the allegations and evidence presented. (Paras 12, 22)
Facts of the case:
The appellant was accused of harboring individuals involved in the murder of Praveen Nettaru, with evidence suggesting his knowledge of their terrorist activities.
Findings of Court:
The court found sufficient prima facie evidence to deny bail, emphasizing the gravity of the allegations and societal impact.
Issues: Whether the appellant had knowledge of the terrorist activities and the applicability of UAPA provisions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that societal interests take precedence; the prima facie evidence justified the denial of bail under UAPA provisions.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appellant's alleged involvement in harboring accused. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments presented by the appellant's counsel. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. prosecution's response to the appellant's arguments. (Para 6 , 10) |
| 4. court's assessment of prima facie evidence. (Para 12 , 16 , 22) |
| 5. final decision and reasoning for denying bail. (Para 17 , 21) |
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR)
This appeal under Section 21 (4) of the National Investigation Agency Act is filed by accused No.26 challenging the order dated 23.01.2025 passed by the Special Court for the trial of NIA cases rejecting his application for bail.
2. The allegation leveled against the appellant is that he harbored accused Nos. 4 and 20 and provided other help to them. They are two of the accused persons who are said to have involved in the murder of Praveen Nettaru on 26.07.2022 at Putturu. FIR was registered in Crime No. 63/2022 by the local police station, and then the investigation was handed over to the NIA. Appellant came into picture when supplementary charge sheet was filed against him and accused No.25 invoking the offences punishable under Sections 120B and 212 of IPC and Section 19 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (for short ‘ UAPA ’).
3. On going through the statements of the witnesses, LW-344 and LW352 to 356, and other materials, the Special Court formed an opinion that there was prima facie evidence suggestive of involvement of the appellant knowingly that accused Nos.4 and 20 were involved in terrorist activities.
4. Sri Mohammed Tahir, learned counsel for the appellant, assails the order of the Special Court urging the following grounds :
(i) The materials do not indicate that the appellant harbored accused Nos.4 and 20.
(ii) The appellant had no knowledge that accused Nos.4 and 20 were facing the allegations of having committed offences under UAPA . Case of simple murder is given the colour of terrorism with a view to targeting minority community.
(iii) For arguments sake, if it can be said that there is a prima facie case against the appellant, the offence that can be invoked against the appellant is the one punishable under Section 212 of IPC, not under Section 19 of UAPA . In that event there is no impediment for granting bail to the appellant.
(iv) Offence under Section 19 of UAPA is deliberately alleged against the appellant to see that he shall not be released on bail in view of restriction contained under Section 43D of UAPA .
(v) The word “Terrorist” is not defined under any law. Unless it is shown that an individual is a member of an organization mentioned in the First Schedule or name of an individual is included in the Fourth Schedule, as mentioned in Section 35 of UAPA , no one can be prosecuted for offences under UAPA and since the appellant is not a member of any organization and that his name is not included in the Fourth Schedule, his prosecution under Section 19 of UAPA is illegal. Thus seen there is no prima facie material against him and he becomes entitled to bail.
5. On 05.04.2025, Sri Mohammed Tahir filed an application, I.A.2/2025, under Section 482 read with Section 391 of Cr.P.C to urge an additional ground that the NIA mechanically arrested the appellant without informing him grounds of arrest and thus the fundamental right under Article 21 and Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India was violated. He further submitted that denial of bail in the circumstances made out would also violate Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In support of his argument, Sri Mohammed Tahir has garnered support from a few decisions which will be referred to later.
6. Sri P.Prasanna Kumar, the Special Public Prosecutor for NIA, met the argument of Sri Mohammed Tahir in the following manner :
(i) The materials collected during investigation indicate that the murder of Praveen Nettaru was to strike terror in a section of society and thereby destabilize the unity and integrity of the nation. The accused in this case ma
