Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 26084
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
Sachin Shankar Magadum, Rajesh Rai K, JJ
MR. IRFAN PASHA – Appellant
Versus
NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY – Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 812 OF 2026 (21(NIA))
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mohammed Tahir
For the Respondents: P. Prasanna Kumar
Interim bail on humanitarian grounds for religious ceremonies is subject to judicial discretion, considering the seriousness of offences, the stage of the trial, and the availability of other family members to perform rituals, particularly under the stringent provisions of the UAP Act.
Headnote:The appellant sought interim bail under S. 439(1) of the Cr.P.C. for offences under S. 302, 201 r/w S. 34 of the IPC, S. 3 and 27 of the Arms Act, and S. 15, 16, 17, 18, 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. The appellant, who has been in judicial custody for over nine years, requested a three-day release to attend the 40th-day prayer ceremony of his deceased sister. The Trial Court rejected the application, noting that the appellant had previously been granted interim bail for a related ceremony and that other male family members were available to perform the rituals. The primary issue was whether humanitarian grounds and the significance of a religious ceremony justify the grant of interim bail despite the stringent bar under S. 43D(5) of the UAP Act and the risk of flight. The court reasoned that since the trial is at the "fag end stage" and the offences are serious in nature, and given the lack of cogent reasons to grant a second interim bail in a short span, the Trial Court's discretion was correctly exercised. Accordingly, the appeal lacks merit and the same is dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of the case and the specific request for interim bail on humanitarian grounds. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. competing arguments between humanitarian necessity and the risk of flight/seriousness of charges. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. denial of interim bail based on the stage of trial, nature of offences, and lack of cogent reasons for repeated requests. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S 21(4) NIA PRAYING TO APPRECIATE THIS APPEAL AND ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 30.04.2026 AT ANNEXURE-A PASSED IN SPL.CC NO.181/2017 OFFENCES P/U/S 302, 201 R/W SECTION 34 OF IPC AND SECTION 3 AND 27 OF ARMS ACT AND U/S 15, 16, 17, 18, 20 OF UNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT 1967 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE XLIX ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (SPECIAL COURT FOR TRIAL OF NIA CASES) AT BENGALURU AND CONSEQUENTLY GRANT INTERIM BAIL TO ACCUSED NO.1/APPELLANT FOR THE PERIOD OF 3 DAYS TO APPELLANT TO ATTEND AND PARTICIPATE IN 40TH DAY PRAYER EVENT OF HIS ONLY DECEASED SISTER SMT.SHAHEDA YASMEEN SCHEDULE ON 08 TO 10 MAY 2026 BY APPRECIATING THE BAIL APPLICATION U/S 439(1) OF CRPC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K)
1. The appellant/accused No.1 has assailed the order dated 30.04.2026 passed by the XLIX Addl City Civil and Sessions Judge [Special Court for Trial of NIA Cases] at Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as 'Trial Court') in Spl.C.No.181/2017 for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 27 of the Arms Act and under Sections 15, 16, 17, 18 and 20 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 ("UAP Act"), whereby the learned Trial Court has rejected the interim bail application filed by the appellant under Section 439(1) of Cr.P.C.
2. Heard the learned counsel Sri.Mohammed Tahir for the appellant and the learned Special Public Prosecutor Sri.P.Prasanna Kumar, appearing for the respondent.
3. The brief facts of the case are that based on the complaint lodged by one Jayaram alleging murder of one Rudresh R., the Commercial Street Police Station registered a case on 16.10.2016 in Crime No.124/2016. After registration of crime, the appellant was arrested and after investigation, the police filed a chargesheet for the aforementioned offences by arraying the appellant as accused No.1. The matter is now pending before the Court of Session in Spl.C.C.No.181/2017 registered for the aforesaid offences.
4. The appellant has been in judicial custody since 9 years and 6 months and has approached the Trial Court seeking interim bail for a period of 3 days i.e., 8th May to 10th May 2026, under Section 439(1) of Cr.P.C, to participate and arrange the 40th day prayer of departed soul of his sister who passed away on 30.03.2026. The said application came to be dismissed vide impugned order. Hence, he is before this Court in this appeal seeking to set aside the impugned order and consequently, grant an interim bail as aforesaid.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that though the appellant is in judicial custody since 9 years 6 months, the Trial Court has failed to appreciate the humanitarian ground raised for grant of interim bail that too to attend the 40th day ceremony of his deceased sister as the said event is a very significant and important event in which all the family members will assemble and pray for the departed soul. It is further contended that though the statutory bar under Section 43D (5) of the UAP Act, although stringent, does not exclude the exercise of judicial discretion in cases of extreme hardship or urgent humanitarian ground. It is also contended that the appellant is ready to abide by any stringent conditions to be imposed in the event of his bail being granted. As such, he prays for allowing of the appeal by setting aside the im
