Back
Rejects Syed Ali Bail: Potassium Nitrate, Sugar, Batteries for IED Not Innocuous
dismissed the bail appeal of Syed Ali, a UAPA accused, reiterating that the purchase of common items like potassium nitrate, sugar, and batteries cannot be seen as innocuous when linked to preparing an IED for violent jihad.
A division bench of Justice Dr. Anita Sumanth and Justice Sunder Mohan delivered the judgment on , rejecting the appeal against a order that had denied bail to Ali, the 13th accused in an and terror conspiracy case.
The Connection and the Alleged IED Plot
The case originates from a FIR that was later taken over by the . Syed Ali was arrested in and charged under Sections 120-B, 471, and 201 of the , along with Sections 18, 38, and 39 of the , and Sections 4 and 5 of the . The prosecution alleges that Ali participated in secret meetings planning to establish in India, purchased potassium nitrate, sugar, and batteries for operating an IED, and destroyed incriminating pen drives. An earlier bail plea was dismissed by the High Court in , which found a case and noted witness testimonies supporting the conspiracy.
‘Daily Use’ Items Under Scrutiny
In the latest appeal, Ali’s counsel, , argued that the trial court’s order rejecting bail was cryptic and failed to consider his submissions. He contended that there had been no progress in the trial despite his long incarceration since 2020. On merits, he argued that no specific was attributed to him and that the items he purchased—potassium nitrate (a fertilizer), sugar, and batteries—were everyday items with innocent uses. He cited several precedents, including and , to support the argument that without trial violates .
The prosecution, represented by Special Public Prosecutor , relied on the earlier High Court order that had already established a case against Ali. They submitted that the gravity of the offence—preparation for violent jihad—justified his detention. They also noted that had been taken, against 19 accused, and trial had commenced with seven witnesses examined, undertaking to complete the trial within six months.
The bench firmly rejected the argument that the items were innocuous. In a key observation, the court stated: “We reject this argument as, while the aforesaid items separately taken may not be of much consequence, the case of the prosecution relates to the items taken together for operating an IED as a preparation for violent jihad.”
Case and the UAPA Bar
The court noted that the earlier judgment dated , had recorded a case regarding the conspiracy, including secret meetings, plans for Hijrah to Bangalore to establish , and destruction of evidence. Since that order had attained finality, the bench was not inclined to review it. The court also considered the under , which restricts bail when there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation is true.
On the question of prolonged incarceration, the court acknowledged the appellant’s detention since but balanced it against the prosecution’s undertaking to expedite the trial. The court recorded the affidavit stating that the had framed charges and trial was underway, with a commitment to prune the witness list to 90 and complete proceedings within six months.
The Verdict: Bail Denied, Trial on Fast Track
The High Court dismissed the appeal with no order as to costs. While upholding the rejection of bail, the court noted the progress in the trial and the prosecution’s undertaking, effectively putting the accused on notice that the case would move forward swiftly. The decision underscores the court’s willingness to deny bail in UAPA cases when a case is made out, even when the accused points to delays, as long as the trial is actively progressing.
