SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 69039

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, P. V. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ
Nassar – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
CRL.A NO. 228 OF 2025 | CRL.A.225/2025 | CRL.A.242/2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: E.A.HARIS, P.P.HARRIS
For the Respondents: SREENATH S SASTHAMANGALAM, S. AJITHKUMAR (SR.), DSGI FOR NIA

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.

Headnote:(A) National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 - Section 21 - Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 - Sections 13, 16, 18, 20, 22C, 23, 38 & 39 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 120B, 34, 302 - Criminal Appeals against denial of bail - Accused members of Popular Front of India (PFI) charged with conspiracy to commit terrorist acts and communal violence - Court emphasized the importance of timely trial and the implications of prolonged pre-trial detention. (Paras 2, 5, 10, 12, 13)

(B) Bail - Considerations for granting bail - Long periods of detention without trial may necessitate bail, especially when the trial is unlikely to conclude in a reasonable time frame - The court must balance the severity of allegations with the rights of the accused, particularly under Article 21 of the Constitution. (Paras 8.1, 12, 13)

Facts of the case:
The accused were arrested in connection with a conspiracy to commit terrorist acts under the guise of communal violence, with evidence of training and planning to instigate fear among communities.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the prolonged detention of the accused, coupled with the complexity of the case, warranted the grant of bail.

Issues: The primary issues included whether the allegations justified the continued detention of the accused and whether the prosecution had established a prima facie case.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the statutory restrictions on bail do not preclude constitutional courts from granting bail in cases of prolonged detention, and emphasized the need for a pragmatic approach in such circumstances.

Result: Appeals allowed; bail granted under specified conditions.

Table of Content
1. the court's conclusion and order regarding the bail applications. (Para 13 , 14)

JUDGMENT :

Raja Vijayaraghavan, J.

These Criminal Appeals have been preferred under Section 21 of the National Investigation Agency Act , 2008.

2. Crl. Appeal No. 225 of 2025 is preferred by the accused Nos. 25, 27, 31 and 32, Crl. Appeal No. 228 of 2025 is preferred by the accused No. 33 and Crl. Appeal No. 242 of 2025 is preferred by the accused Nos. 29, 30 and 51 in S.C.No.2/2023/NIA on the file of the Special Court for Trial of NIA Cases, Ernakulam.

3. In the above case, they, along with the rest of the accused, stand indicted for having committed offences punishable under sections 120B, 34, 109, 115, 118, 119, 143, 144, 147, 148, 449, 153A, 341, 302, 201 , 212 r/w.s. 149 , 120B r/w.s. 302 of IPC , Section 3 (a)(b)(d) r/w. Section 7 of the Religious Institutions (Prevention of Misuse) Act , 1988 and Sections 13 , 16, 18, 18A, 18B, 20, 22C, 23 , 38 & 39 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act , 1967 and Section 25 (1) (a) of the Arms Act , 1959.

4. By the order passed by the learned Special Court, the applications for bail preferred by the appellants were dismissed.

5. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

5.1. The Central Government received credible and actionable intelligence indicating that the office bearers, members, and cadres of the Popular Front of India (PFI)—a registered society—and its affiliated organisations in Kerala had conspired to instigate communal violence and radicalise their cadres to commit terrorist acts in the State of Kerala and other parts of the country.

5.2 The intelligence revealed that PFI members and office bearers based in Kerala, many of whom had earlier s with the proscribed terrorist organisation SIMI (Students Islamic Movement of India), maintained operational linkages with other internationally proscribed terrorist organisations such as Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS)/Daesh, and Al-Qaeida. Some members of the PFI cadres were themselves members of these banned terrorist groups.

5.3 It was revealed that the PFI had allegedly created an organised network with the objective of recruiting vulnerable Muslim youth into proscribed international terrorist organisations to facilitate the commission of terrorist acts. Moreover, PFI and its members were reportedly engaged in activities prejudicial to public order and harmony by inciting hatred between different religious communities through incendiary speeches, publications, articles, and social media posts. Their actions were aimed at disrupting public tranquillity, and evidence pointed to organised movements intending to train participants in the use of criminal force against individuals of other religions or groups—thereby instilling fear, terror, and a sense of insecurity among members of other communities.

5.4 The PFI and its members were allegedly responsible for several violent incidents and murders in Kerala, which created a sense of terror in the minds of the general public. Additionally, it is alleged that PFI, its office bearers, and its members were indulging in unlawful activities with the intent to foment disaffection against the Indian State by provoking individuals, especially innocent members of the Muslim community, to defy the Government and institutions established by law—thereby undermining the sovereignty and integrity of India.

5.5 Based on the above facts and the gravity of the allegations, the Central Government formed the opinion that the activities of the Popular Front of India attracted offences punishable under Sections 120B and 153A of the Indian Penal Code , 1860, and Sections 13 , 18, 18B, 38, and 39 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act , 1967, which are scheduled offences under the National Investigation Agency Act , 2008.

5.6. Being satisfied that the above acts had serious ramifications for national security, the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, CTCR Divis

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top