Madhya Pradesh High Court
Wasid Khan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 May, 2025
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:23955
1 CRA-2776-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEVNARAYAN MISHRA
ON THE 17th OF MAY, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2776 of 2025
WASID KHAN
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Mohd Tahir - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Bramhadatt Singh - Special Public Prosecutor for the
respondent-State.
ORDER
Per: Justice Vivek Agarwal
Shri Bramhadatt Singh, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the
respondent is not ready with the matter.
2. Request of Shri Bramhadatt Singh to grant him short
adjournment as State should not suffer because of his unpreparedness, is
rejected.
3. Heard learned cousnel for the appellant.
4. This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 21 of the National
Investigation Agency Act, 2008 against the impugned order dated
08.02.2025 passed by learned Special Judge, NIA Cases, Bhopal,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:23955
2 CRA-2776-2025
rejecting Regular Bail Application No. 322 of 2025 under Section 439
Cr.P.C. arising out of ST No. 224 of 2023, wherein appellant has been
charged under Sections 121-A, 153-A, 120-B, 201 of Indian Penal Code
read with Section 13 (1)(b), 18, 18-A, 18-B of the Unlawful Activities
(Prevention)Act, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1967).
5. It is submitted that, learned Special Judge has wrongly and on
misreading of the provisions of the Act of 1967 has dismissed an
application for grant of bail and therefore, this appeal is filed seeking
bail for the appellant Shri Wasid Khan.
6. Mohd. Tahir, learned counsel for the appellant submits that, as
per the allegations, case of the prosecution is that, appellant is part of one
Human Right Organization and extends legal assistance in his capacity.
He has also taken part in the membership classes of the Organization and
is working for promotion of Organizational Agenda. His memorandum
was drawn under Section 27 of the Evidence Act and on the basis of that
memorandum, he has been falsely implicated. It is submitted that,
charge-sheet was filed by the SIT on 19.03.2023 under above Sections.
7. It is submitted that appellant is an enrolled Advocate, working
as an Volunteer with Human Rights Organization and conduct legal
awareness program. He has not caused any act which may fall within the
definition of unlawful activities as defined under Section 2(o) of the Act
of 1967, so also he is not a member of unlawful association defined in
Section 2(p) of the Act of 1967. None of his acts can be said to be
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:23955
3 CRA-2776-2025
Terrorist Act as defined in Section 3(a) and therefore, his detention and
denial of bail is arbitrary and illegal.
8. It is submitted that, there is a property seizure memo dated
23.04.2023 which has no evidentiary value in as much as appellant was
never taken to the place of seizure as he was already lodged in the jail.
Reliance is placed on the judgment of Supreme Court in the cases of
Ramanand Vs. State of U.P. 2022 SCC On-Line SC 1396 and Perumal
Raja Vs. State 2024 SCC On-Line SC 12, so also on the judgment of
Supreme Court in the case of Suresh Chandra Tiwari Vs. State of
Uttrakhand 2024 SCC On-Line.
9. It is submitted that, there is no unusual bank transaction found
being carried out by the appellant, nor there is any procedure followed as
prescribed under Section 45(2) of the Act of 1967 as per law.
10. Reliance is also placed on the judgment of the High Court of
Judicature at Bombay, Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction in Cr. Appeal No.
78 of 2024 Shaikh Sadique Ishaq Qureshi Vs. State of Maharashtra &
another decided on 28.03.2025.
11. Learned Dy. Advocate General Shri B.D. Singh, opposes the
prayer and submits that, there is no material available to show
indulgence.
12. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going
through the records.
13. Section 2(o) of the Act of 1967 defines "unlawful activity",
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:23955
4 CRA-2776-2025
in relation to an individual or association, means any action taken by
such individual or association (whether by committing an act or by
words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representation
or otherwise) :--
(i) which is intended, or supports any claim, to bring about, on any
ground whatsoever, the cession of a part of the territory of India or the
secession of a part of the territory of India from the Union, or which
incites any individual or group of individuals to bring about such cession
or secession; or
(ii) which disclaims, questions, disrupts or is intended to disrupt
the sovereignty and territorial integrity of India; or
(iii) which causes or is intended to cause disaffection against
India.
14. Similarly, Section 2(k) of the Act of 1967 defines "terrorist
act" as the meaning assigned to it in section 15, and the expressions
"terrorism" and "terrorist" shall be construed accordingly;
15. Section 15 of the Act of 1967 defines Terrorist Act. Sub-
section (1) of Section 15 of the Act of 1967 provides that, "Whoever
does any act with intent to threaten or likely to threaten the unity,
integrity, security, economic security or sovereignty of India or with
intent to strike terror or likely to strike terror in the people or any section
of the people in India or in any foreign country".
16. We have gone through the seizure memo and the seizure
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:23955
5 CRA-2776-2025
memo reveals that incriminating material like Books, CD, Computer,
Pen-Drive, Bank-Account, Pamphlet, certain lectures and written
materials have been seized from the house/office of the appellant which
prima facie reveals that attempt is being made to cause disruption in the
communal harmony amongst the members of the Society, so to achieve
and object of establishing a Mughal Order as it existed prior to
Britishers taking over Regin from the hands of the Mughals and started
ruling the country before independence.
17. When we examined the material, then we are of the opinion
that it is for the trial Court to decide it on the basis of the evidence as to
what is the material available to prove or otherwise the charges which
have been framed. But prima facei when examined, then the act of the
appellant cannot be said to be such that calls for this Court's intervention
without completion of the trial. Especially in view of the judgment of
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India represented by the
Inspector of Police, National Inviestigation Agency, Chennai Branch Vs.
Barkatulla etc. 2024 SCC On-line SC 1019, wherein in para 23, Hon'ble
Supreme Court has noted as under:
"23. This Court has often interpreted the counter terrorism
enactments to strike a balance between the civil liberties of the accused,
human rights of the victims and compelling interest of the state. It cannot
be denied that National security is always of paramount importance and
any act in aid to any terrorist act - violent or non-violent is liable to be
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:23955
6 CRA-2776-2025
restricted. The UAPA is one of such Acts which has been enacted to
provide for effective prevention of certain unlawful activities of
individuals and associations, and to deal with terrorist activities, as also
to impose reasonable restrictions on the civil liberties of the persons in
the interest of sovereignty and integrity of India."
18. Since the trial is pending and parties are free to adduce their
evidence, we restrain from making any further comments on the merits
as it may have an adverse impact on the trial but at the same time, we
feel that, for the present, application for grant of bail appears to be not
matured. The judgment cited by the learned counsel for the appellant are
distinguishable on their own facts.
19. Accordingly, this Criminal appeal is liable to be dismissed
and is hereby dismissed.
20. It is made clear that, any observations advertently or
inadvertently made herein, shall not come in the way of fair trial.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) (DEVNARAYAN MISHRA)
JUDGE JUDGE
AR
