Blog

Case title: Masood V. The State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another.

Case no.: Criminal Appeal No. 54 of 2023

Decided on: 12.03.2024

Quorum: Hon’ble Justice Ajai Kumar Srivastava, Hon’ble Justice Attau Rahman Masoodi

FACTS OF THE CASE:

The appellant, Masood, filed a criminal appeal under the NIA Act seeking bail after his application was rejected by the Special Court. The appellant’s counsel argued that there was no evidence linking Masood to terrorist activities and highlighted the inconsistency in granting bail to co-accused. The court found grounds to set aside the lower court’s decision and granted bail to Masood with specific conditions. The order stated that the observations made will not impact the trial proceedings.

LEGAL PROVISIONS:

The legal provisions involved in the case were:

Sections 153-A, 295-A, 124-A, 120B of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.).

Sections 17 and 18 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.

Sections 65 and 72 of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (NIA Act).

Section 43-D (5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, UAPA.

APPELLANTS CONTENTION:

The petitioner (appellant) presented several detailed arguments in their case:

Lack of Incriminating Evidence: The appellant’s counsel argued that no incriminating articles or materials were found in the possession of the appellant, indicating his innocence in the alleged offenses.

Inapplicability of Charges: It was contended that the offenses mentioned in the chargesheet, including Sections 153-A, 295-A, 124-A, 120B of the IPC, and sections of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, do not apply to the appellant as there is no substantial evidence linking him to these crimes.

False Allegations: The petitioner’s legal representative asserted that the allegations against the appellant are baseless, false, and lack evidential support, emphasizing the need for a fair assessment of the available evidence.

Misuse of UAPA: Concern was raised about the misuse of stringent provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act against individuals who are not involved in terrorist activities or unlawful acts, highlighting the importance of ensuring justice and fairness in legal proceedings.

Lack of Association with Terrorist Organizations: The appellant’s counsel emphasized that the appellant has no association with any terrorist organizations or unlawful activities, further supporting the claim of innocence.

Failure to Consider Evidence: It was argued that the court below failed to adequately consider the lack of substantial evidence against the appellant, leading to an unjust decision regarding the bail application.

Prolonged Incarceration: The appellant has been in custody since 2020 without a prima facie case established against him, indicating the need for bail considering the absence of criminal history and the gravity of charges.

RESPONDENTS CONTENTION:

The contentions presented by the respondents in the case were as follows:

Valid Reasons for Bail Rejection: The respondents argued that the Special Court had valid reasons for rejecting the bail application of the appellant, emphasizing the existence of sufficient evidence against him.

Appellant’s Association with PFI: It was contended that the appellant is associated with the PFI organization, which is allegedly involved in terrorist activities and aims to create unrest in the country by spreading caste and religious animosity.

Financial Transactions: The respondents pointed out significant money transactions in the bank accounts of the appellant and other co-accused, suggesting potential involvement in unlawful activities. They supported the challenged decisions.

Criminal History: The respondents highlighted the criminal history of the appellant, citing details provided in a supplementary affidavit, which may indicate a pattern of unlawful behaviour.

Rejection of Bail Application: The respondents supported the rejection of the bail application based on the appellant’s alleged association with a potentially dangerous organization, criminal history, and the evidence collected against him.

COURT’ S ANALYSIS AND JUDGMENT:

After a thorough examination of the arguments and evidence presented, the court deliberated on the crucial aspects of the case. The court acknowledged the absence of incriminating evidence against the appellant, the questionable applicability of charges, and the concerns raised regarding the misuse of legal provisions. Additionally, the court considered the appellant’s prolonged incarceration without a prima facie case established against him, highlighting the need for a fair assessment of the situation.

In its judgment, the court weighed the arguments from both sides and assessed the evidence in a balanced manner. The court recognized the importance of upholding justice and ensuring that legal provisions are not misused to the detriment of innocent individuals. Considering the lack of substantial evidence linking the appellant to the alleged offenses, the court concluded that the bail rejection was not justified.

Therefore, the court allowed the appeal, setting aside the lower court’s decision to reject the bail application. The court granted bail to the appellant, emphasizing the need for a fair and just legal process. The judgment underscored the principles of justice, fairness, and the protection of individual rights in legal proceedings, ensuring that the appellant’s rights were upheld in the pursuit of truth and justice.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Judgement reviewed by – Ayush Shrivastava

Click here to read the full judgement.