*THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN AND THE HON’BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO + CRIMINAL APPEAL No.684 OF 2025 % Delivered on: 22—09—2025 # Sri Abdul Khadar @ Abdul Quadar and others … Appellants vs.

$ Union of India and another … Respondents !Counsel for the Appellants: Sri Shaik Muhammed Abed ^Counsel for Respondent No.2: P.Vishnuvardhana Reddy Special Public Prosecutor for NIA

>Head Note :

? Cases referred:

1. 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2610

2. (2014) 14 SCC 295

3. (2007) 1 SCC 1

4. (2020) 17 SCC 664

5. 2023 SCC OnLine SC 911

6. Indian Kanoon-http://indiankanoon.org/doc/123815068/

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA HYDERABAD * * * *

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.684 OF 2025 Between:

Sri Abdul Khadar @ Abdul Quadar and others … Appellants And Union of India and another … Respondents JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON: 22.09.2025 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN AND THE HON’BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO

1. Whether His Lordship wishes to see the fair copy of the Judgment? : Yes

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be Marked to Law Reporters/Journals? : Yes

3. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgments? : No _____________________ B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO,J THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN AND THE HON’BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO CRIMINAL APPEAL .NO.684 OF 2025 JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Justice B.R.Madhusudhan Rao)

The present Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 21 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, aggrieved by the order dated 18.06.2025 passed by the learned IV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge cum Special Court for NIA Cases at Hyderabad in Crl.M.P.No.2224 of 2024, in Spl. SC 1 of 2023 (RC-

03/2022/NIA/HYD), NIA, Hyderabad.

2.1. Appellants are A1, A5 and A24 in Spl.S.C.No.1 of 2023. They have filed an interlocutory application in the said Appeal vide Crl.M.P.No.2224 of 2024 under Section 45 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act to examine impugned sanction dated

28.12.2022.

2.2. It is stated in the application (Crl.M.P.No.2224 of 2024) that police, Town-VI PS, Nizamabad, initially raided the house of the petitioners without following due process of law and registered a case in FIR No.141 of 2022 dated 04.07.2022 under Sections 120-B, 121-A, 153-A, 141 r/w 34 of IPC and Sections 13(1)(b) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (herein after referred to as UA (P) Act, 1967), against them and they were produced before the concerned Court for remand and later the investigation was transferred to NIA, Hyderabad. Petitioners-A1, A5 and A24 are falsely implicated in the crime. Police are the complainant and “suo motu” crime is registered, the allegations are vague and general and even going by the version of the prosecution, papers and books, there is no material to show that the petitioners have committed the offence. Perusing the entire evidence in the charge sheet and without contesting it even if it is taken on its face, it has no ingredients of Section 18, 18(A), 18(B) of UA (P) Act, 1967, as to invoke and apply the above mentioned provisions, it is mandate to satisfy the ingredient of Section 15 of UA(P) Act which has defined the Terrorist Act.

2.3. Complainant Agency has investigated the case and filed charge sheet under schedule offences after obtaining sanction under Sections 13(1)(b), 18, 18(A) and 18(B) of UA(P)A, 1967 and the sanction is bald and subjective.

2.4. Perusal of the sanction order, it does not reflect that the sanctioning authority has applied its mind while passing the order and there is no reference of any discussion or material which became the basis of granting sanction under the schedule offences.

There is no whisper in the impugned sanction order when the matter was referred to the independent authority and when the independent authority has submitted that recommendation, which information is just and necessary in the order of such nature and contravention of these process vitiate the sanction, same cannot be cured at any stage.

2.5. Most of the statements recorded by the p