Syed Mohd Zishan Ali vs The State (Nct Of Delhi)
2019 Latest Caselaw 2237 Del

#6

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                     Judgment delivered on:29th April, 2019

CRL.A. 923/2018

SYED MOHD ZISHAN ALI                                               ..... Appellant

                                     versus
THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI)                                           .... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Appellant  : Mr. M.S. Khan and Mr. Prashant Prakash, Advocates.
For the Respondent   : Mr. Ravi Nayak, APP for State along with ACP Lalit Mohan Negi,
                       Inspector Ravinder Tyagi, SI, Vikas Deep.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ANU MALHOTRA

                  JUDGMENT

SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J (OPEN COURT)

1. The present appeal under Section 21 (4) of the National

Investigation Agency Act, 2008, assails the Order dated 12th July, 2018,

in Case No. 9378/2018, titled as "State vs. Sayed Mohd. Zishan Ali",

passed by Additional Sessions Judge-02 (FTC), District Patiala House

Courts, New Delhi, whereby the bail application instituted on behalf of

the appellant, came to be dismissed.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant invites our

attention to the statement, under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.PC'), 1973, made by

Mohammad Saquib Khan, cited as a prosecution witness in the trial,

which is underway, to urge that the same does not in any manner disclose

the commission of any offence within the meaning of the provisions of

Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as

'UAP Act').

3. Predicated on the above solitary submission, it is asseverated that

the appellant is entitled to be released on bail ex debito justitiae.

4. At the outset, we must observe that the relevant provision of the

UAP Act, in relation to the grant or release on bail to an accused person

is enunciated as a non-obstante clause, which clearly and unequivocally

postulates that, if the Court is of the opinion that, there are reasonable

grounds for believing that the accusations against such person are prima

facie true, he shall not be released on bail. Further, the provision

stipulates that the restrictions contained in Section 437 (1) Cr.PC, are also

applicable.

5. In the present case, it is an admitted position that the appellant is

standing trial pursuant to the charges being framed against him under

Sections 18, 18-B and 20 of the UAP Act. A perusal of the order on

charge dated 6th March, 2018, leads to one inescapable conclusion, that of

the prima facie involvement of the appellant in grave and serious

offences, which attract a sentence that may extend to imprisonment for

life upon conviction.

6. Furthermore, a perusal of the report under Section 173 Cr.PC filed

against the appellant and the circumstance that, he was declared a

Proclaimed Offender in the present proceedings, as well as, his

propensity to furnish fabricated documents, suffice in our view to believe

that, he represents a flight risk.

7. In view of the foregoing, we find no warrant to interfere with the

impugned order dated 12th July, 2018, rendered by the Special Court.

8. The appeal being devoid of merit is accordingly dismissed.

SIDDHARTH MRIDUL (JUDGE)

ANU MALHOTRA (JUDGE) APRIL 29, 2019 RS