Blog

Case Title – Union of India rep. by inspector of Police National Investigative agency Chennai Branch vs. Barakatullah etc.

Case No. – Criminal Appeal No. 2715 – 2719 of 2024

Dated on – 22^nd May, 2024

Quorum – Hon’ble Justice Bela M. Trivedi, Hon’ble Justice Pankaj Mittal

 

Facts of the Case –

The Central Government, through the Ministry of Home Affairs’ CTCR Division, acting on credible information, found that Popular Front of India (PFI), an extremist Islamic organization, was spreading its ideology in Tamil Nadu and engaging in activities related to terrorism via its frontal organizations. Consequently, an order dated 16th September 2022, under Section 6(5) and Section 8 of the NIA Act, 2008, directed the National Investigation Agency (NIA) to investigate. An FIR (RC-42/2022/NIA/DLI) was registered on 19th September 2022 against PFI members for offences under IPC Sections 120B, 153A, 153AA, and UAPA Sections 13, 17, 18, 18B, 38, and 39. The respondents were arrested on 22nd September 2022 and their bail applications were dismissed by the Special Court under the NIA Act. They subsequently appealed to the High Court of Judicature at Madras. Meanwhile, a chargesheet was filed on 17th March 2023 for offences under IPC Sections 120B, 121A, 122, 153A, 505(1)(b), (c), (2) and UAPA Sections 13, 18, 18A, 18B. The High Court granted bail on 19th October 2023, which led the Union of India, via NIA Chennai Branch, to file the present appeals challenging the High Court’s order.

 

Issues –

• Whether the High Court correctly interpreted the provisions of Section 18 read with Section 15 of the UAPA in granting bail to the respondents.
• Whether the High Court adequately considered the material and evidence presented by the investigating authority.
• Whether the special provision of Section 43(D) of the UAPA was appropriately applied by the High Court.

 

Legal Provisions –

• Section 15 of UAPA
• Section 18 of UAPA
• Section 43D(5) of UAPA

Contentions of the Appellant –

The appellant contented that the Hon’ble High Court stumbled in its interpretation of Section 18 in conjunction with the definition of a “terrorist act” under Section 15 of the UAPA, which led to the improper granting of bail to the respondents charged with severe offences. The appellant emphasized that the High Court failed to adequately consider the overt acts and alleged offences committed by the respondents, as detailed by both listed and protected witnesses. The appellant highlighted the substantial reliance on these witness statements, which demonstrate the involvement of each respondent in the alleged offences under the IPC and UAPA.  The appellant further contended that the witness statements, although recorded when PFI was not banned, are still credible until rebutted or contradicted. The Hon’ble High Court was suspected of minimizing the gravity of the allegations by suggesting insufficient evidence of offences under Section 15 of the UAPA, despite witnesses testifying about the respondents organizing weapon training, including the use of knives, swords, and water-filled beer bottles as part of terrorist preparation. The appellant referenced recent judicial precedents, asserting that Section 43(D) of UAPA applies from the FIR registration stage through trial conclusion and that courts should determine the accused’s involvement based on broad probabilities. The appellant argued that the High Court’s order was perverse, failing to recognize that witness testimonies and investigation recoveries established a prima facie case against the respondents for their involvement in the alleged offences.

Contentions of the Respondent –

The respondents argued that the appellant’s reliance on statements made by protected and listed witnesses was improper, as these witnesses had themselves participated in the alleged offences. They contended that the vague allegations made by these witnesses were unreliable, particularly in the absence of material evidence showing any preparatory actions by the respondents to substantiate the case against them. The respondents emphasized that the High Court had thoroughly examined the evidence collected during the investigation and, finding it unsubstantial, granted bail to the respondents. They argued that the High Court’s discretionary order should not be interfered with, asserting that it was neither illegal nor unjust. Additionally, the respondents referenced various decisions by the Supreme Court supporting the High Court’s exercise of discretion in granting bail.

 

 

Court Analysis and Judgement –

The Supreme Court noted that the chargesheet need not contain a detailed analysis of evidence, but rather that it is the court’s role to assess whether there are reasonable grounds to believe the accusations against the accused are prima facie true based on the entirety of the material presented. The Court found sufficient evidence in the form of witness statements, digital devices, and other incriminating materials collected during the investigation to form a prima facie case against the respondents. This evidence indicated the PFI’s covert agenda to radicalize and promote terrorism, with the respondents being active members or office bearers involved in training and preparation for terrorist activities.

The Supreme Court held that the High Court committed a gross error by not considering the material and evidence in the proper perspective and by erroneously finding no material to suggest the commission of any offence under Section 15 of the UAPA. The Supreme Court clarified that for Section 18, it is not necessary to prove the actual commission of a terrorist act, but rather any conspiracy or preparation to commit such an act suffices.

The Supreme Court emphasized that bail should not be granted when there is reasonable material to believe the accused’s involvement in serious offences under UAPA. Given the respondents’ brief period of custody, their criminal antecedents, and the gravity of the allegations, the Supreme Court found the High Court’s decision to grant bail as unsustainable. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order, directing the respondents to surrender and the Special Court to expedite the trial proceedings.

The appeals were thus allowed, reinforcing the principle that national security and effective prevention of terrorism are of paramount importance.

“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- Anurag Das

abc vs cba