Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 27624
THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Mohammad Nawaz, G Basavaraja, JJ
Mahammad Jabir – Appellant
Versus
National Investigation Agency – Respondent
CRL.A No. 679 of 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mohammed Tahir
For the Respondents: P. Prasanna Kumar
Temporary interim bail may be granted on humanitarian grounds, specifically for essential family medical care, notwithstanding the restrictive provisions of S. 43D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, provided conditions are imposed to ensure the accused's return and prevent tampering.
Headnote:The appellant invoked S. 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, challenging an order rejecting interim bail requested for 90 days to assist his mother with necessary knee surgery. The appellant contended he was the sole support for his mother, who suffers from severe osteoarthritis. The court considered the humanitarian grounds and recent precedents from the Supreme Court in similar factual matrices, determining that temporary release could be granted without prejudice to the ongoing NIA trial, provided strict conditions regarding surveillance and surrender were maintained. The central issue was whether interim bail should be granted on humanitarian grounds for medical family assistance despite the stringent provisions under S. 43D(5) of the UA(P) Act. The court reasoned that while the gravity of the offences and the bar against bail are significant, temporary relief for a limited duration of 90 days is permissible when corroborated by medical necessity and the absence of alternate support, following the ratio established in prior SC rulings that show judicial indulgence in extraordinary family circumstances. The appeal was allowed, and the appellant was granted interim bail for 90 days subject to conditions of personal bond, sureties, and eventual surrender.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. nature of the charge, procedural history of the bail application, and the grounds for seeking interim release. (Para 1 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. arguments regarding the statutory bar versus the specific humanitarian necessity and precedents for interim relief. (Para 2 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. court's judicial discretion to balance custodial rigors with humanitarian medical imperatives under strict monitoring. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S 21(NIA), PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 16/02/2026 PASSED BY THE XLIX ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, (SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF NIA CASES), (CCH-50), BENGALURU IN SPL.C.NO.123/2023 AT ANNEXURE-A AND CONSEQUENTLY GRANT THE INTERIM BAIL FOR A PERIOD OF 3 MONTHS TO APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.21 IN SPL.C.NO.123/2023 UNDER SECTIONS 120B, 153A, 302 R/W 34 OF IPC AND SECTION 18, 18A AND 20 OF UA (P) ACT, 1967, PENDING IN THE FILES XLIX ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, (SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF NIA CASES), (CCH-50), BENGALURU.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ)
The appellant is before this Court in this appeal preferred under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, praying to set aside the order dated 16.02.2026 passed by the Court of XLIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (Special Court for the trial of NIA cases) at Bengaluru in Spl.C.No.123/2023 and to grant him interim bail for a period of 3 months.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for appellant, learned Special Public Prosecutor for respondent/NIA and perused the material on record.
3. The appellant is arraigned as accused No.21 in the supplementary charge sheet filed by the respondent-NIA wherein, the case is pending in Spl.C.No.123/2023 before the Special Court for trial of NIA cases. Charge sheet is filed against 28 accused. Appellant is chargesheeted for offences punishable under Section 120B , 153A, 302 r/w 34 of IPC, Sections 16, 18 and 20 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 for short UA(P) Act, 1967 and Section 25(1)(a) of Arms Act, 1959. Accused Nos.5, 7, 13, 22 and 23 are absconding and accused No. 28 is reported to be dead.
4. The appellant filed an application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. before the Special Court to grant him bail for a limited period of 90 days on the ground that the health condition of his mother is very critical and she requires immediate Total Knee Replacement (TKR) Surgery. The Special Court has rejected the said application vide impugned order, taking into consideration the nature of offence and in view of invocation of the UA(P) Act, holding that there is a bar under Section 43D(5) of the said Act to grant bail on any ground.
5. The learned Spl. Public Prosecutor (Spl.PP) appearing for respondent-NIA has opposed the prayer seeking bail by filing statement of objections. He contended that the appellant's prayer for bail has been rejected by this Court as well as the Hon'ble Apex Court and in the present case, several accused are still absconding and in view of the nature and gravity of the offence and prima facie case against the petitioner, he is not entitled for bail even on the ground he has sought in the instant appeal.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant's earlier application was for statutory bail and now bail is sought on the ground of severe health condition of appellant's mother. He submitted that the appellant’s mother has been diagnosed with severe osteoarthritis of both the knees and she is unable to perform basic daily activities and in fact the orthopedic surgeons have advised Total Knee Replacement (TKR) Surgery and as there is no male family members to attend, assist or accompany her during the course of surgery, hospitalisation and rehabilitation, the surgery could not be conducted. He submits that the appellant i
