Allahabad High Court
Abdul Majeed Alias Majeed vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. on 7 May, 2024
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:35312-DB
Court No. - 1
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1929 of 2023
Appellant :- Abdul Majeed Alias Majeed
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.
Counsel for Appellant :- Mohammad Alishah Faruqi,Azizullah Khan,Bal Keshwar Srivastava,Mohd. Nafees
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Attau Rahman Masoodi,J.
Hon'ble Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available record.
2. This criminal appeal under Section 21-A (4) National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as "N.I.A., 2008) has been preferred by the appellant against the order dated 12.05.2023 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.5/ Special Judge, N.I.A./ A.T.S., Lucknow in Bail Application No. 3908 of 2022 titled as Abdul Majeed alias Majeed vs State of U.P., arising out of Case Crime No.631 of 2022, under Sections 120B, 121A, 153A, 295A, 109 I.P.C. and Section 13 Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act,1967 (hereinafter referred to as "UAPA Act, 1967"), Police Station Vibhuti Khand, District Lucknow, whereby the bail application of the appellant was rejected.
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 25.09.2022 an F.I.R. was lodged at Police Station- Vibhuti Khand, District- Lucknow stating therein that various Agencies including Special Task Force, Uttar Pradesh had been receiving information that Popular Front of India (hereinafter referred to as "P.F.I.") and certain other uslim organizations were engaging themselves in anti-national activities with an intention to divide and disintegrate India and establish a Islamic State by 2047. They were conspiring to do so. The information was received by the Inspector, Aditya Kumar Singh that in and around District-Lucknow under the leadership of State Coordinator of U.P. unit of P.F.I. and Abdul Majeed Alias Majeed were actively participating to strengthen the aforesaid organization and establish P.F.I. The informant informed on 24.09.2022 that Abdul Majeed was seen as trying to catch the bus at Kamta Chauraha for going somewhere and accordingly, they were apprehended for investigation. Upon conclusion of the investigation, a chargesheet was came to be filed against the present appellant.
4. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the chargesheet has already been filed against the appellant, therefore, there is no likelihood of investigation being hampered or adversely affected. He next submits that there is also no possibility of witnesses being pressurized. He has also submitted that the appellant is languishing in jail since 25.09.2023. He further submits that though the chargesheet has already been filed, however having regard to the fact that there are several witnesses to be examined in the trial court, there is no likelihood of conclusion of trial in near future. In his further submission, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the substantive offence under Section 121A I.P.C. is not made out against the appellant in view of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No. 639 of 2023; Vernon vs. State of Maharashtra and Another reported in 2023 INSC 655 decided on 28.07.2023, according to which, mere possession of some pamphlets etc. itself does not constitute offence under Section 121A I.P.C.
5. As regards the other offences under Section 153A, 295A I.P.C., his submission is that these offences carry a sentence of three years only whereas the appellant has already remained in jail since 25.09.2023.
6. As regards the offence under Section 13(1)(B) of the UAPA Act, 1967, apart from the fact that the same is not made out against the appellant, he submits that such an offence carries a sentence of seven years or less than seven years. Therefore, in view of the fact that the appellant is languishing in jail since 25.09.2023, the appellant is entitled to be enlarged on bail. The appellant has no criminal history. Therefore, he submits that the impugned order dated 12.05.2023, whereby the application for bail moved by the appellant came to be rejected is unsustainable, which deserves to be set aside and consequently, the appellant deserves to be enlarged on bail during the pendency of trial.
7. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State has opposed the aforesaid contention, however after having gone through the police report available with him, he could not dispute the fact that except for the offence under Section 121A I.P.C., the other offences under different sections of I.P.C. carry a sentence of three years or less. He could also not deny the legal proposition as propounded by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Vernon's case (supra). He further submits that the appellant was involved in anti-social activities and therefore, in case, he is enlarged on bail, not only there is likelihood of his indulgence in commission of such offence again but there is also a possibility that he would flee away.
8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the entire record, we find that chargesheet in this case has already been filed. As investigation has already been concluded and which has culminated in filing of the police report in form of chargesheet against the applicant, we do not find any substance in the argument of the learned counsel appearing for the State that the appellant would adversely affect or influence the investigation. We also find that Section 121A I.P.C. has been invoked against the appellant on the basis of some pamphlets/literature etc. which are, prima facie, do not constitute offence under Section 121A I.P.C. in view of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Vernon's case (supra). It is also not disputed that the appellant has no previous criminal history.
9. Thus, in view of the aforesaid overall facts and circumstances of the case, we find the impugned order dated 12.05.2023 to be unsustainable, which deserves to be set aside and is, accordingly, set aside.
10. Consequently, the present criminal appeal is allowed. We accordingly order the release of appellant-Abdul Majeed Alias Majeed on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned, with the following conditions:-
(i) The appellant shall deposit his passport with ATS, (Gomti Nagar) and shall not leave the country without permission of the trial Court.
(ii) Appellant shall not leave boundaries of the State of Uttar Pradesh without permission of the trial Court. He shall present himself before the Investigation Officer of Police Station ATS, Lucknow in the third week of every month and if not possible on the said date, he shall positively appear by the last day of the month.
(iii) Appellant shall not indulge in any criminal activity while on bail and if he does, then, it can be made the basis for seeking cancellation of the bail by the prosecution.
(iv) The appellant shall not communicate or try to communicate with any of the witnesses or alleged victims or try to influence them otherwise and if he does, then, this can be made a ground for seeking cancellation of his bail.
(v) The appellant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.
(vi) The appellant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.
[A.K. Srivastava-I, J.] [A.R. Masoodi, J.]
Order Date :-7.5.2024
Raj
