Telangana High Court
Mohammed Abdul Mobeen Mobin vs The State Of Telangana on 20 March, 2024
Bench: K.Lakshman, P.Sree Sudha
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
AND
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE P. SREE SUDHA
CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos.912, 797 AND 969 OF 2023 ALONG
WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos.57, 62, 61, 56 AND 80 OF 2024
COMMON JUDGMENT:
(Per Hon'ble Sri Justice K. Lakshman)
Heard Mr. V. Raghunath, learned Senior Counsel representing
Mr. T. Rahul, learned counsel for the appellant(s) in Crl.A. Nos.797,
912, 56, 57 & 80 of 2023, Mr. Shaik Mohd. Rizwan Akhtar, learned
counsel for the appellant in Crl.A.Nos.969 & 62 of 2023 and Mr.
Mohd. Moinuddin, learned counsel for the appellant in Crl.A. No.61
of 2024, and also Mr. B. Narasimha Sharma, learned Additional
Solicitor General of India and Mr. P. Vishnuvardhan Reddy, learned
Special Public Prosecutor for National Investigation Agency (NIA)
appearing on behalf of the respondent.
2. Criminal Appeal Nos.57, 62 & 61 of 2024, 912 of 2023 and
56 & 80 of 2024 are filed by accused Nos.5, 24, 7, 16, 28, 34 and 35
respectively challenging the orders, dated 13.12.2023, 15.12.2023,
19.09.2023, 08.12.2023 and 29.12.2023 in Crl.M.P. Nos.1623, 1663,
1621, 1184, 1451 and 1839 of 2023 in Spl.S.C.No.1 of 2023,
KL,J & PSS,J
Crl.A. No.912 of 2023 & batch
respectively passed by learned IV Additional Metropolitan Sessions
Judge - cum - Special Court for NIA Cases, Nampally, Hyderabad (for
short (for short 'Special Court') dismissing the bail applications filed
by them.
3. Criminal Appeal Nos.797 and 969 of 2023 are filed by
accused Nos.32 and 33 respectively challenging the orders dated
14.08.2023 and 13.10.2023 in Crl.M.P.Nos.904 and 1361 of 2023 in
Spl.S.C. No.2 of 2023, respectively, passed by the Special Court
dismissing the bail applications.
4. The case of the NIA in brief is as follows:
i) The accused persons including the appellants herein, being
trained cadres/members of Popular Front of India (PFI), in criminal
conspiracy of establishing Islamic Rule in India by 2047, provoked
and radicalizing innocent Muslim Youth, recruiting them into PFI,
imparting them weapon training in PFT's Terrorist Camps at Heaven
Garden Function Hall, Kurnool, to commit violent terrorists activities,
such as murdering the targeted persons with knife, sickle, iron rods
etc., and the said training was with an intention to strike terror in the
minds of people belonging to particular religious community.
KL,J & PSS,J
Crl.A. No.912 of 2023 & batch
ii) During the course of investigation, it was revealed the
intention of the accused/PFI cadres to assassinate Hindu Leaders and
every person who is against establishment of Islamic rule in India and
in the terrorists camps, they told the Youth not to hesitate from
eliminating leaders of Hindu Organization, if situation so demands.
iii) The acts of the accused persons were promoting the enmity
between different groups in the Country. The investigation revealed
that the accused persons organized weapon training camps at the
aforesaid Function Hall, where newly recruited PFI Members were
radicalized and trained in a coded language for using weapons like
Book-1, Book-2 for hitting hard on head, knees, ankle, Book-3
attacked with koduvali/sickle and thus the accused persons are liable
for prosecution. Later supplementary charge sheet was filed against
accused Nos.32, 33, 34, 35 and 36 and the same was taken on file vide
Special S.C. No.02 of 2023.
5. The specific allegations levelled against each of the
appellants are as under:
Crl.A. Spl.SC. Arraigned Role of accused in
S.N. No. No. as & date Offences commission of offence
of arrest
01. 57/24 1/23 5 & 24 Secs.120B, A-5 is PFI District
06.07.22 121A, 153A Secretary for Nizamabad.
& 141 r/w 34 He in conspiracy with
KL,J & PSS,J
Crl.A. No.912 of 2023 & batch
IPC & other accused was
13(1)(b), 18, involved in brainwashing
18A & 18B the impressionable
of the UA (P) Muslim Youth by
Act,1967 provoking them against
the Government,
BJP/RSS and other Hindu
Organizations. After
recruitment, he sent them
to terror camp for
training.
A-24 is an active PFI
cadre in Nizamabad and
provoking Muslim youth
in his area to join in PFI
and instigating them
against the Indian
Government.
02. 62/24 " 7 -do- He is a very active of PFI
18.09.22 cadre and provoking
Muslim youth to join in
PFI and instigating them
against the Indian
Government. After
recruitment, he sent them
to terror camp for training
under the garb of Yoga
classes or physical
training.
03. 61/24 " 16 -do- He is a hardcore PFI
18.09.22 cadre and holds a black
belt in Karate. He was
imparting physical
efficiency training to the
newly recruited PFI
members in the terror
camps of PFI wherein he
taught them about Book-
I, 2 and 3, which are code
words for killing a person
by attacking his
vulnerable body parts
with knife, iron rod and
sickle.
KL,J & PSS,J
Crl.A. No.912 of 2023 & batch
04. 912/23 " 28 120B & He is a hard-core PFI
06.07.22 153A IPC & cadre and is looking after
13(1)(b), 18, the work of PFI's cadre
18A & 18B expansion in Nizamabad.
of the UA (P) He takes 1st, 2nd and 3rd
Act,1967 class of radicalization for
recruiting local Muslim
youth of his area intoPFI
by provoking them with
inflammatory religious
speeches against Hindus
etc. After recruitment, he
sent them to PFI's terror
camps
05. 56/24 " 34 Secs.120B, Joined PFI in Guntur
22.09.22 121A, 153A District in 2014 and had
& 141 r/w 34 been the President in
IPC & 2015. He was part of
13(1)(b), 18, criminal conspiracy to
18A & 18B make India an Islamic
of the UA (P) Nation by 2047. After
Act,1967 recruitment, he sent them
to PFI's Terrorist camp at
Kurnool.
06. 80/24 " 35 -do- Joined PFI in Guntur
22.09.22 District in 2014. He was
present at PFI's Terrorist
camp at Kurnool and
assisted other accused in
conducting the weapon
training.
07. 797/23 2/23 32 Joined PFI in 2014 and
22.09.22 had been the President of
PFI of Guntur District
during the year 2016-17.
He was present in PFI's
-do- weapon training camp
held in Kurnool. He took
a lecture on Jihad and
motivated the trainees for
violent unlawful
activities.
08. 969/23 " 33 -do- Joined PFI in 2015 and
22.09.22 had been the President of
PFI of Guntur District
during the year 2017-18.
KL,J & PSS,J
Crl.A. No.912 of 2023 & batch
He assisted other co-
accused in PFI's weapon
training camp held in
Kurnool.
6. According to the appellants, the Police, Town VI,
Nizamabad, initially registered a case in Crime No.141 of 2022
against some of the appellants herein and others for the offences under
Sections - 120B, 121A, 153A and 141 read with 34 of IPC and
Sections - 13 (1) (b) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967
(for short 'UAPA'). Thereafter, NIA, Hyderabad took over the
investigation as per the directions of the Ministry of Home Affairs, re-
registered the same as RC No.3 of 20200/NIA/HYD., on 26.08.2022
under Sections - 120B, 121A, 153A and 141 read with 34 of IPC and
Sections - 13 (1) (b), 18A and 18B of the UAPA. Subsequently, the
investigation was transferred to NIA, Hyderabad and filed charge
sheet. In fact, the allegations levelled against them do not satisfy the
ingredients of the aforesaid offences.
i) It is contended by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellants that NIA has not seized any incriminating material from the
custody of the appellants. During investigation, NIA has also
recorded the statement of LWs.27 and 28, who are protected
witnesses. They made specific statement against the appellants. They
KL,J & PSS,J
Crl.A. No.912 of 2023 & batch
have attended organization membership classes and programme.
They were part of PFI, accomplice in the alleged crime. The
statement of an approver cannot be recorded. Thus, appellants cannot
be punished for the offences which they have not committed. The
appellants were falsely implicated in the above case.
ii) As far as accused No.28 is concerned, the Special Court
while dealing with the aforesaid bail application observed that prima
facie material shows that the appellant - accused No.28 was in mutual
consent with the other conspirators in provoking the
trainees/participants with inflammatory religious speeches against the
Hindus, RSS and Indian Government and recruiting them into PFI,
which has basis with banned organization, for imparting training in
use of knife, iron rods, sickle to attack and kill the members of other
religion and statements of the witnesses are corroborating to the same
along with the oral and documentary evidence collected and available
with the charge sheet. Observing so, the Special Court dismissed the
said bail application of accused No.28.
iii) With regard to accused Nos.32 and 33, the Special Court
observed that they were present at the time of imparting training at
Heaven Garden Function Hall, Kurnool, they motivated the
KL,J & PSS,J
Crl.A. No.912 of 2023 & batch
participants by giving lecture, to participate and learn three books i.e.,
Book No.1, Book No.2 and Book No.3, as to how to attack on
stomach and chest with knife, hit forcibly on head and knees with rods
and how to kill a person in a single attack with sickle. The material
collected during course of investigation collates with the accusation
and they are prima facie corroborating with the statements of
protected witnesses, who revealed the names of accused Nos.32 and
33 and also the names of other accused as to specific role played by
them. Observing so, the Special Court dismissed the bail applications
of accused Nos.32 and 33.
iv) With regard to accused Nos.5 & 24, 7, 16, 34 and 35,
learned senior counsel appearing on their behalf would submit that no
offence has been attracted against them even as per the version of the
Investigating Agency. Prima facie, there is no case made against
them either in the FIR or in the charge sheet. They were falsely
implicated in the present case.
v) Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the
Special Court failed to make distinction between the 'unlawful
activities' and 'terrorist activities' and consequently failed to
appreciate that embargo incorporated in Section - 43-D (5) has no
KL,J & PSS,J
Crl.A. No.912 of 2023 & batch
application in the present case. The allegations leveled against the
appellants are on the basis of statements of members of the alleged
organization recorded under Section - 161 of Cr.P.C. who are none
other than accomplice and partner in the alleged allegation.
vi) Mr. V. Raghunath, learned senior counsel, would contend
that as on the date of conducting ride on accused No.1 and as on the
date of alleged participation of the appellants in the alleged weapon
training held at Heaven Garden Function Hall, Kurnool during
January/February, 2021, PFI was not banned. Its activities were also
not banned. For all practical purposes, it is a legal organization. It
has been conducting several activities including total empowerment of
the marginalized and backward sections of the society.
vii) He would further submit that mere participation in the
meeting is not a 'terrorist act' and the appellants have not committed
any offence. They were arrested on different dates i.e., 06.07.2022,
19.09.2022 and 22.09.2022 respectively, and since then they are
languishing in the jail. Entire investigation has been completed and
the subject S.C. Nos.1 and 2 of 2023 are pending for trial. It may take
considerable time to complete the trial. Without considering the said
KL,J & PSS,J
Crl.A. No.912 of 2023 & batch
aspects, the Special Court dismissed the bail applications filed by the
appellants.
viii) He would further submit that this Court has to consider the
role played by each of the accused and the accusations made against
each of them separately. The details of protected witnesses are not
known to anybody. Accused No.28 is a Welder; accused Nos.32 and
34 are doing pickle business; accused No.33 is a vegetable vendor;
accused Nos.5 is doing a petty business, while accused No.24 is
running a chicken shop and accused No.7 is running a Photostat shop;
accused No.16 is a painter, while accused No.35 is an electrician.
After imposition of ban in PFI, the appellants never participated in any
of the activities of PFI. In fact, there is no action from any of the
members of PFI from the date of its ban. Marriage of the daughter of
accused No.32 is scheduled on 01.02.2023. However, vide orders
dated 25.01.2024 in I.A. No.1 of 2024, this Court granted interim bail
to him ordering to release on 29.01.2024 by 11.00 A.M., with a
direction to surrender before the Superintendent, Central Prison,
Chanchalguda, Hyderabad on 09.02.2024 by 11.00 A.M.
ix) PFI was formed in the year 2010 and it conducted legal
activities on 27.09.2022. The appellants were members of the PFI and
KL,J & PSS,J
Crl.A. No.912 of 2023 & batch
they are holding positions in Guntur District Unit. PFI has been
conducting welfare activities which are useful to the downtrodden
people including distribution of ration kits, food during Ramzan,
organizing blood donation camps, school chalo campaign for giving
school uniforms, books and scholarships for the poor Muslim
students. It is also conducting Yoga classes. Without considering the
same, the Special Court dismissed the bail applications.
x) He would further submit that if the contention of NIA that
there is every possibility of the accused threatening the witnesses and
interfere with the fair trial, they are at liberty to file application
seeking cancellation of bail. The contents of the charge sheet do not
satisfy the ingredients of the offences alleged against the appellants.
Since the investigation was already completed and charge sheet was
laid against the appellants, the Special Court ought to have granted
bail to them.
xi) Learned senior counsel also relied on the decisions in
Union of India v. K.A.Najeeb 1; Vernon v. State of Maharashtra2;
State of Andhra Pradesh through Inspector General, National
. (2021) 3 SCC 713
. 2023 SCC OnLine SC 885
KL,J & PSS,J
Crl.A. No.912 of 2023 & batch
Investigation Agency v. Mohd. Hussain Alias Saleem 3;
Barakathulla v. Union of India 4; National Investigation Agency v.
Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali 5; Peerzada Shah Fahad v. UT of
J&K 6; Asif Iqbal Tanha v. State of NCT of Delhi 7; and Thwaha
Fasal v. Union of India 8.
7. Mr. B. Narasimha Sharma, learned Additional Solicitor
General of India, would submit that the offences committed by the
accused are serious and grave in nature. They have conducted
preparatory meeting and they have administered oath to the youth
taking advantage of their financial status. The Investigating Officer
has recorded statements of the protected witnesses i.e., E, I, J, K. The
said statements are corroborated by Section - 161 of Cr.P.C.
statements of six (06) other witnesses. There is every possibility of
the appellants threatening the protected witnesses and interfering with
fair trial, in which event, the Special Court may not be in a position to
conduct fair trial. There are specific allegations and overt acts against
the appellants.
. (2014) 1 SCC 258
. Crl.A. No.98 of 2023 & batch, decided on 19.10.2023 by Division Bench of Madras High Court
. (2019) 5 SCC 1
. CrlA(D) No.42 of 2022, decided on 17.11.2023 by D.B. of High Court of J & K & Ladakh
. 2021 LawSuit (Del.) 1094
. 2021 LawSuit (SC) 679
KL,J & PSS,J
Crl.A. No.912 of 2023 & batch
i) He would further submit that the Investigating Officer has
recorded the statements of 42 witnesses, and some of them are
protected witnesses. The accused are holding important positions in
PFI. There is every possibility of accused continuing the said
activities and interfering with the trial, in which event, it is not
possible for the Special Court to conduct fair trial. Burden lies on the
accused to prove that they have not committed any offence. In all,
there are 36 accused of 14 are in jail and others were not arrested.
ii) He also placed reliance on the decision in Gurwinder Singh
v. State of Punjab9.
8. In view of the aforesaid rival submissions, it is relevant to
extract Sections - 2(k), 2 (o), 2(p), 3, 15, 18, 18-A, 18-B and 43-D (5)
of the UAPA and the same are as follows:
"2(k) "terrorist act" has the meaning assigned to it in
section 15, and the expressions "terrorism" and
"terrorist" shall be construed accordingly."
2(o) "unlawful activity", 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),--
. 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 100
KL,J & PSS,J
Crl.A. No.912 of 2023 & batch
(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;
(p) "unlawful association" means any association,--
(i) which has for its object any unlawful activity, or
which encourages or aids persons to undertake any
unlawful activity, or of which the members undertake
such activity; or
(ii) which has for its object any activity which is
punishable under section 153A (45 of 1860) or section
153B of the Indian Penal Code, or which encourages or
aids persons to undertake any such activity, or of
which the members undertake any such activity:
Provided that nothing contained in sub-clause (ii)
shall apply to the State of Jammu and Kashmir;
3. Declaration of an association as unlawful.--(1) If
the Central Government is of opinion that any
association is, or has become, an unlawful association,
it may, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare
such association to be unlawful.
KL,J & PSS,J
Crl.A. No.912 of 2023 & batch
(2) Every such notification shall specify the grounds
on which it is issued and such other particulars as the
Central Government may consider necessary:
Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall require
the Central Government to disclose any fact which it
considers to be against the public interest to disclose.
(3) No such notification shall have effect until the
Tribunal has, by an order made under section 4,
confirmed the declaration made therein and the order is
published in the Official Gazette:
Provided that if the Central Government is of
opinion that circumstances exist which render it
necessary for that Government to declare an
association to be unlawful with immediate effect, it
may, for reasons to be stated in writing, direct that the
notification shall, subject to any order that may be
made under section 4, have effect from the date of its
publication in the Official Gazette.
(4) Every such notification shall, in addition to its
publication in the Official Gazette, be published in not
less than one daily newspaper having circulation in the
State in which the principal office, if any, of the
association affected is situated, and shall also be served
on such association in such manner as the Central
Government may think fit and all or any of the
following modes may be followed in effecting such
service, namely:--
(a) by affixing a copy of the notification to some
conspicuous part of the office, if any, of the
association; or
KL,J & PSS,J
Crl.A. No.912 of 2023 & batch
(b) by serving a copy of the notification, where
possible, on the principal office-bearers, if any,
of the association; or
(c) by proclaiming by beat of drum or by means of
loudspeakers, the contents of the notification in
the area in which the activities of the
association are ordinarily carried on; or
(d) in such other manner as may be prescribed.
13. Punishment for unlawful activities.--(1)
Whoever--
(a) takes part in or commits, or
(b) advocates, abets, advises or incites the
commission of,
any unlawful activity, shall be punishable with
imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven
years and shall also be liable to fine.
(2) Whoever, in any way, assists any unlawful
activity of any association, declared unlawful under
section 3, after the notification by which it has been so
declared has become effective under sub-section (3) of
that section, shall be punishable with imprisonment for
a term which may extend to five years, or with fine, or
with both.
(3) Nothing in this section shall apply to any treaty,
agreement or convention entered into between the
Government of India and the Government of any other
country or to any negotiations therefor carried on by
any person authorised in this behalf by the Government
of India.
KL,J & PSS,J
Crl.A. No.912 of 2023 & batch
15. Terrorist act.--(1) 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,--
(a) by using bombs, dynamite or other explosive
substances or inflammable substances or firearms
or other lethal weapons or poisonous or noxious
gases or other chemicals or by any other
substances (whether biological radioactive,
nuclear or otherwise) of a hazardous nature or by
any other means of whatever nature to cause or
likely to cause--
(i) death of, or injuries to, any person or persons;
or
(ii) loss of, or damage to, or destruction of,
property; or disruption of any supplies or
services essential to the life of the community
in India or in any foreign country; or
(iiia) damage to, the monetary stability of India by
way of production or smuggling or circulation
of high quality counterfeit Indian paper
currency, coin or of any other material; or
(iv) damage or destruction of any property in India
or in a foreign country used or intended to be
used for the defence of India or in connection
with any other purposes of the Government of
India, any State Government or any of their
agencies; or
KL,J & PSS,J
Crl.A. No.912 of 2023 & batch
(b) overawes by means of criminal force or the show of
criminal force or attempts to do so or causes death
of any public functionary or attempts to cause death
of any public functionary; or
(c) detains, kidnaps or abducts any person and threatens
to kill or injure such person or does any other act in
order to compel the Government of India, any State
Government or the Government of a foreign
country or an international or inter-governmental
organisation or any other person to do or abstain
from doing any act; or
commits a terrorist act.
Explanation.--For the purpose of this sub-section,--
(a) "public functionary" means the constitutional
authorities or any other functionary notified in
the Official Gazette by the Central Government
as public functionary;
(b) "high quality counterfeit Indian currency"
means the counterfeit currency as may be
declared after examination by an authorised or
notified forensic authority that such currency
imitates or compromises with the key security
features as specified in the Third Schedule.
(2) The terrorist act includes an act which constitutes
an offence within the scope of, and as defined in any of
the treaties specified in the Second Schedule.
18. Punishment for conspiracy, etc.--Whoever
conspires or attempts to commit, or advocates,
abets, advises or incites, directly or knowingly
KL,J & PSS,J
Crl.A. No.912 of 2023 & batch
facilitates the commission of, a terrorist act or any
act preparatory to the commission of a terrorist act,
shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term
which shall not be less than five years but which
may extend to imprisonment for life, and shall also
be liable to fine.
18A. Punishment for organising of terrorist
camps.--Whoever organises or causes to be
organised any camp or camps for imparting
training in terrorism shall be punishable with
imprisonment for a term which shall not be less
than five years but which may extend to
imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to
fine.
18B. Punishment for recruiting of any person or
persons for terrorist act.--Whoever recruits or
causes to be recruited any person or persons for
commission of a terrorist act shall be punishable
with imprisonment for a term which shall not be
less than five years but which may extend to
imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to
fine.
43D. Modified application of certain provisions
of the Code.--
(1) xxxxx
(2) xxxxx
(3) xxxxx
(4) xxxxx
KL,J & PSS,J
Crl.A. No.912 of 2023 & batch
(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in the
Code, no person accused of an offence punishable
under Chapters IV and VI of this Act shall, if in
custody, be released on bail or on his own bond
unless the Public Prosecutor has been given an
opportunity of being heard on the application for
such release:
Provided that such accused person shall not be
released on bail or on his own bond if the Court,
on a perusal of the case diary or the report made
under section 173 of the Code is of the opinion that
there are reasonable grounds for believing that the
accusation against such person is prima facie true.
(6) xxxxx
(7) xxxxx"
9. There is no dispute that PFI was banned on 27.09.2022 by
way of issuing Notification. A raid was conducted on accused No.1's
house. The police found certain literature, which is banned and
against the internal security of India etc. Investigation was entrusted
to the NIA on by the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs,
CTCR Division, North Block, New Delhi vide order No.F.No.11011/
73/2022/NIA, dated 25.08.2022. Pursuant to the said order, the NIA
took over the investigation of the case in Crime No.141 of 2022 on
26.08.2022 and re-registered the case as RCB-03/2022/NIA/HYD. of
KL,J & PSS,J
Crl.A. No.912 of 2023 & batch
NIA Police Station, Hyderabad. The NIA has produced statements of
protected witnesses recorded under Section - 164 of Cr.P.C. in a
sealed cover and the same are perused by us.
10. Section - 43-D (5) of the UAPA stipulates the following
two (02) conditions:
(i) providing an opportunity to the Public Prosecutor of being
heard on the application for release;
(ii) Court has to give a finding that there are reasonable grounds for
believing that the accusation against such person is prima facie
true.
In the present case, an opportunity was given to the Public Prosecutor.
NIA had filed counter in the bail petitions before the Special Court
and this Court. Now, this Court has to peruse the report filed under
Section - 173 of the Cr.P.C. and material, including statements of
protected witnesses and come to a conclusion as to whether there are
reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against the
appellants is prima facie true.
11. The Apex Court held that it is a fundamental premise of
open justice, to which our judicial system is committed, that factors
KL,J & PSS,J
Crl.A. No.912 of 2023 & batch
which have weighed in the mind of the judge in the rejection or the
grant of bail are recorded in the order passed. Open justice is
premised on the notion that justice should not only be done, but
should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done. The duty of
the Judges to give reasoned decisions lies at the heart of this
commitment. Questions of the grant of bail concern both liberty of
individuals undergoing criminal prosecution as well as the interest of
criminal justice system in ensuring that those who commit crimes are
not afforded the opportunity to obstruct justice. Judges are duty
bound to explain the basis on which they have arrived at a conclusion.
12. In Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar @ Polia 10, the Apex Court,
discussed with regard to the power of granting bail under Section 439
of Cr.P.C. and held that the power to grant bail under Section 439 of
Cr.P.C. is of a wide amplitude. Though the grant of bail involves the
exercise of discretionary power of the Court, it has to be exercised in a
judicious manner and not as a matter of course. In the said case, the
guiding factors for exercise of power to grant bail as held in Ram
. (2020) 2 SCC 118
KL,J & PSS,J
Crl.A. No.912 of 2023 & batch
Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh11, were referred, which are as
follows:
"3. Grant of bail though being a discretionary
order - but, however, calls for exercise of such a
discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter
of course. Order for bail bereft of any cogent reason
cannot be sustained. Needless to record, however,
that the grant of bail is dependent upon the contextual
facts of the matter being dealt with by the court and
facts, however, do always vary from case to
case...The nature of the offence is one of the basic
considerations for the grant of bail - more heinous is
the crime, the greater is the chance of rejection of the
bail, though, however, dependent on the factual
matrix of the matter.
4. Apart from the above, certain other which may
be attributed to be relevant considerations may also
be noticed at this juncture, though however, the same
are only illustrative and not exhaustive, neither there
can be any. The considerations being:
(a) While granting bail the court has to keep in
mind not only the nature of the accusations, but the
severity of the punishment, if the accusation entails
a conviction and the nature of evidence in support
of the accusations.
(b) Reasonable apprehensions of the witnesses
being tampered with or the apprehension of there
. (2002) 3 SCC 598
KL,J & PSS,J
Crl.A. No.912 of 2023 & batch
being a threat for the complainant should also
weigh with the court in the matter of grant of bail.
(c) While it is not expected to have the entire
evidence establishing the guilt of the Accused
beyond reasonable doubt but there ought always to
be a prima facie satisfaction of the court in support
of the charge.
(d) Frivolity in prosecution should always be
considered and it is only the element of
genuineness that shall have to be (2002) 3 SCC
598 considered in the matter of grant of bail, and
in the event of there being some doubt as to the
genuineness of the prosecution, in the normal
course of events, the Accused is entitled to an
order of bail."
i) It was further held in the very same judgment that the
determination of whether a case is fit for the grant of bail involves the
balancing of numerous factors, among which the nature of the offence,
the severity of the punishment and a prima facie view of the
involvement of the Accused are important. No straight jacket formula
exists for courts to assess an application for the grant or rejection of
bail. At the stage of assessing whether a case is fit for the grant of bail,
the court is not required to enter into a detailed analysis of the
evidence on record to establish beyond reasonable doubt the
commission of the crime by the Accused. That is a matter for trial.
However, the Court is required to examine whether there is a prima
facie or reasonable ground to believe that the Accused had committed
KL,J & PSS,J
Crl.A. No.912 of 2023 & batch
the offence and on a balance of the considerations involved, the
continued custody of the Accused sub-serves the purpose of the
criminal justice system. Where bail has been granted by a lower court,
an appellate court must be slow to interfere and ought to be guided by
the principles set out for the exercise of the power to set aside bail.
13. In Devendar Gupta v. National Investigation Agency 12, a
Division Bench of combined High Court of Andhra Pradesh at
Hyderabad had considered the relevant provisions of UAPA, the
expression used in Section - 43-D (5) of UAPA i.e., 'prima facie'
'reasonable grounds' etc. and laid down certain instances or
circumstances which would provide adequate guidance for the Court
to form an opinion, as to whether the accusation in such cases is
'prima facie true'.
"The following instances or circumstances, in our
view, would provide adequate guidance for the
Court to form an opinion, as to whether the
accusation in such cases is "prima facie true":
1) Whether the accused is/are associated with
any organization, which is prohibited
through an order passed under the
provisions of the Act;
. 2014 (2) ALD (Cri) 251
KL,J & PSS,J
Crl.A. No.912 of 2023 & batch
2) Whether the accused was convicted of the
offences involving such crimes, or
terrorist activities, or though acquitted on
technical grounds; was held to be
associated with terrorist activities;
3) Whether any explosive material, of the
category used in the commission of the
crime, which gave rise to the prosecution;
was recovered from, or at the instance of
the accused;
4) Whether any eye witness or a mechanical
device, such as CC camera, had indicated
the involvement, or presence of the
accused, at or around the scene of
occurrence; and
5) Whether the accused was/were arrested,
soon after the occurrence, on the basis of
the information, or clues available with
the enforcement or investigating
agencies."
14. In M. Londhoni Devi v. National Investigation Agency 13,
a Division Bench of Gauhati High Court held that accused is an active
member of a terrorist organization, even then the nature of active
involvement would depend on the evidence led by the prosecution.
On a given set of facts, even an active member may be sentenced to
imprisonment only for a short while, every active member need not be
sentenced to imprisonment for life. Therefore, merely because an
allegation has been made, the appellant is an active member of a
. 2012 (110) AIC 384
KL,J & PSS,J
Crl.A. No.912 of 2023 & batch
terrorist organization, such as UNLF would not ipso facto attract the
severest penalty under the Statute.
15. In Dhan Singh v. Union of India 14, a Division Bench of
the Bombay High Court held that the word "prima facie" is coupled
with the word "true", it implies that the Court has to undertake an
exercise of crosschecking the truthfulness of the allegations made in
the complaint, on the basis of the materials on record. If the Court
finds, on such analysis, that the accusations are inherently improbable
or wholly unbelievable, it may be difficult to say that a case, which is
"prima facie true", has been made out. In doing this exercise, the
Court has no liberty to come to a conclusion, which may virtually
amount to an acquittal of the accused. Mere formation of opinion by
the Court, on the basis of the material placed before it, is sufficient.
The Court also has to undertake an exercise of cross-checking
truthfulness of the allegations made in the complaint, on the basis of
the material on record.
16. In Yedala Subba Rao v. Union of India 15, the Apex Court
referring to Sections - 25, 26 and 27 of the Evidence Act held that the
. MANU/MH/3894/2019
. (2023) 6 SCC 65
KL,J & PSS,J
Crl.A. No.912 of 2023 & batch
essential ingredient of the Section - 27 is that the information given by
the accused must lead to the discovery of the fact which is the direct
outcome of such information. Secondly, only such portion of the
information given as is distinctly connected with the said recovery is
admissible against the accused. Thirdly, the discovery of the fact must
relate to the commission of some offence. The embargo on statements
of the accused before the police would not apply if all the above
conditions are fulfilled.
17. In Vernon2, the Apex Court considering the principle laid
down by it in Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali5 in paragraph No.36 held
as under:
36. In the case of Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali
(supra), it has been held that the expression "prima
facie true" would mean that the materials/evidence
collated by the investigating agency in reference to
the accusation against the accused concerned in the
charge sheet must prevail, unless overcome or
disproved by other evidence, and on the face of it,
materials must show complicity of such accused in
the commission of the stated offences. What this
ratio contemplates is that on the face of it, the
accusation against the accused ought to prevail. In
our opinion, however, it would not satisfy the
KL,J & PSS,J
Crl.A. No.912 of 2023 & batch
prima facie "test" unless there is at least surface-
analysis of probative value of the evidence, at the
stage of examining the question of granting bail
and the quality or probative value satisfies the
Court of its worth. In the case of the appellants,
contents of the letters through which the appellants
are sought to be implicated are in the nature of
hearsay evidence, recovered from co-accused.
Moreover, no covert or overt terrorist act has been
attributed to the appellants in these letters, or any
other material forming part of records of these two
appeals. Reference to the activities of the accused
are in the nature of ideological propagation and
allegations of recruitment. No evidence of any of
the persons who are alleged to have been recruited
or have joined this "struggle" inspired by the
appellants has been brought before us. Thus, we
are unable to accept NIA's contention that the
appellants have committed the offence relating to
support given to a terrorist organisation."
The Apex Court also considered the scope of 'Terrorist Act' defined
under Sections - 2 (k) and 15 of UAPA and referring to several
judgments rendered by it held that mere holding of certain literatures
through which violent acts may be propagated would not ipso facto
attract the provisions of Section - 15 (1) (b) of the UAPA.
KL,J & PSS,J
Crl.A. No.912 of 2023 & batch
18. In Anand Tetlumbde v. The National Investigation
Agency 16, a Division Bench of Bombay High Court on consideration
of material placed before it and also referring to the provisions of
UAPA held that while dealing with bail application, Court has to
consider that the material placed by the Investigating Agency has to
inspire confidence to bring the accused act as alleged for punishment
prescribed under the provisions of the UAPA and also the criminal
antecedents.
19. It is relevant to note that in Gurwinder Singh9, the Apex
Court considering the scope of Section - 43-D of the UAPA and also
the principle laid down by it earlier cases including Zahoor Ahmad
Shah Watali5 held as under:
"19. The courts are, therefore, burdened with a
sensitive task on hand. In dealing with bail
applications under UAP Act, the courts are merely
examining if there is justification to reject bail.
The 'justifications' must be searched from the case
diary and the final report submitted before the
Special Court. The legislature has prescribed a
low, 'prima facie' standard, as a measure of the
degree of satisfaction, to be recorded by Court
when scrutinising the justifications [materials on
. 2023 (1) Bom.CR (Cri) 416
KL,J & PSS,J
Crl.A. No.912 of 2023 & batch
record]. This standard can be contrasted with the
standard of 'strong suspicion', which is used by
Courts while hearing applications for 'discharge'.
In fact, the Supreme Court in Zahoor Ali Watali2
has noticed this difference, where it said:
"In any case, the degree of satisfaction to be recorded
by the Court for opining that there are reasonable
grounds for believing that the accusation against the
accused is prima facie true, is lighter than the degree
of satisfaction to be recorded for considering a
discharge application or framing of charges in relation
to offences under the 1967 Act."
20. In this background, the test for rejection of bail
is quite plain. Bail must be rejected as a 'rule', if
after hearing the public prosecutor and after
perusing the final report or Case Diary, the Court
arrives at a conclusion that there are reasonable
grounds for believing that the accusations are
prima facie true. It is only if the test for rejection
of bail is not satisfied - that the Courts would
proceed to decide the bail application in
accordance with the 'tripod test' (flight risk,
influencing witnesses, tampering with evidence).
This position is made clear by Sub-section (6) of
Section 43D, which lays down that the restrictions,
on granting of bail specified in Sub-section (5), are
in addition to the restrictions under the Code of
Criminal Procedure or any other law for the time
being in force on grant of bail.
KL,J & PSS,J
Crl.A. No.912 of 2023 & batch
21. On a textual reading of Section 43 D(5) UAP
Act, the inquiry that a bail court must undertake
while deciding bail applications under the UAP
Act can be summarised in the form of a twin-prong
test :
1) Whether the test for rejection of the bail is
satisfied?
1.1 Examine if, prima facie, the alleged
'accusations' make out an offence under Chapter
IV or VI of the UAP Act
1.2 Such examination should be limited to case
diary and final report submitted under Section 173
CrPC;
2) Whether the accused deserves to be enlarged on
bail in light of the general principles relating to
grant of bail under Section 439 CrPC ('tripod
test')?
On a consideration of various factors such as
nature of offence, length of punishment (if
convicted), age, character, status of accused etc.,
the Courts must ask itself:
2.1 Whether the accused is a flight risk?
2.2. Whether there is apprehension of the accused
tampering with the evidence?
2.3 Whether there is apprehension of accused
influencing witnesses?
KL,J & PSS,J
Crl.A. No.912 of 2023 & batch
22. The question of entering the 'second test' of
the inquiry will not arise if the 'first test' is
satisfied. And merely because the first test is
satisfied, that does not mean however that the
accused is automatically entitled to bail. The
accused will have to show that he successfully
passes the 'tripod test'.
Test for Rejection of Bail: Guidelines as laid
down by Supreme Court in Watali's Case
23. In the previous section, based on a textual
reading, we have discussed the broad inquiry
which Courts seized of bail applications under
Section 43D(5) UAP Act r/w Section 439 CrPC
must indulge in. Setting out the framework of the
law seems rather easy, yet the application of it,
presents its own complexities. For greater clarity in
the application of the test set out above, it would
be helpful to seek guidance from binding
precedents. In this regard, we need to look no
further than Watali's case which has laid down
elaborate guidelines on the approach that Courts
must partake in, in their application of the bail
limitations under the UAP Act. On a perusal of
paragraphs 23 to 29 and 32, the following 8-point
propositions emerge and they are summarised as
follows:
• Meaning of 'Prima facie true' [para 23]: On the
face of it, the materials must show the complicity
of the accused in commission of the offence. The
materials/evidence must be good and sufficient to
KL,J & PSS,J
Crl.A. No.912 of 2023 & batch
establish a given fact or chain of facts constituting
the stated offence, unless rebutted or contradicted
by other evidence.
• Degree of Satisfaction at Pre-Chargesheet,
Post Chargesheet and Post Charges -
Compared [para 23]: Once charges are framed, it
would be safe to assume that a very strong
suspicion was founded upon the materials before
the Court, which prompted the Court to form a
presumptive opinion as to the existence of the
factual ingredients constituting the offence alleged
against the accused, to justify the framing of
charge. In that situation, the accused may have to
undertake an arduous task to satisfy the Court that
despite the framing of charge, the materials
presented along with the charge sheet (report under
Section 173 CrPC), do not make out reasonable
grounds for believing that the accusation against
him is prima facie true. Similar opinion is required
to be formed by the Court whilst considering the
prayer for bail, made after filing of the first report
made under Section 173 of the Code, as in the
present case.
• Reasoning, necessary but no detailed
evaluation of evidence [para 24]: The exercise to
be undertaken by the Court at this stage--of giving
reasons for grant or nongrant of bail--is markedly
different from discussing merits or demerits of the
evidence. The elaborate examination or dissection
of the evidence is not required to be done at this
stage.
• Record a finding on broad probabilities, not
based on proof beyond doubt [para 24]: "The
Court is merely expected to record a finding on the
basis of broad probabilities regarding the
involvement of the accused in the commission of
the stated offence or otherwise."
• Duration of the limitation under Section
43D(5) [para 26]: The special provision, Section
KL,J & PSS,J
Crl.A. No.912 of 2023 & batch
43-D of the 1967 Act, applies right from the stage
of registration of FIR for the offences under
Chapters IV and VI of the 1967 Act until the
conclusion of the trial thereof.
• Material on record must be analysed as a
'whole'; no piecemeal analysis [para 27]: The
totality of the material gathered by the
investigating agency and presented along with
the report and including the case diary, is
required to be reckoned and not by analysing
individual pieces of evidence or circumstance.
• Contents of documents to be presumed as true
[para 27]: The Court must look at the contents of
the document and take such document into account
as it is.
• Admissibility of documents relied upon by
Prosecution cannot be questioned [para 27]: The
materials/evidence collected by the investigation
agency in support of the accusation against the
accused in the first information report must
prevail until contradicted and overcome or
disproved by other evidence....... In any case,
the question of discarding the document at this
stage, on the ground of being inadmissible in
evidence, is not permissible.
24. It will also be apposite at this juncture to refer
to the directions issued in Devender Gupta v.
National Investigating Agency [(2014 (2) ALD
Cri.251] wherein a Division Bench of the High
Court of Andhra Pradesh strove to strike a balance
between the mandate under Section 43D on one
hand and the rights of the accused on the other. It
was held as follows:
"The following instances or circumstances, in our
view, would provide adequate guidance for the
KL,J & PSS,J
Crl.A. No.912 of 2023 & batch
Court to form an opinion, as to whether the
accusation in such cases is "prima facie true":
1) Whether the accused is/are associated with any
organization, which is prohibited through an order
passed under the provisions of the act;
2) Whether the accused was convicted of the
offenses involving such crimes, or terrorist
activities, or though acquitted on technical
grounds; was held to be associated with terrorist
activities;
3) Whether any explosive material, of the category
used in the commission of the crime, which gave
rise to the prosecution; was recovered from, or at
the instance of the accused;
4) Whether any eye witness or a mechanical
device, such as CC camera, had indicated the
involvement, or presence of the accused, at or
around the scene of occurrence; and
5) Whether the accused was/were arrested, soon
after the occurrence, on the basis of the
information, or clues available with the
enforcement or investigating agencies."
25. In the case of Kekhriesatuo Tep and Ors. v.
National Investigation Agency [(2023) 6 SCC 58]
the Two-Judge Bench (Justice B.R. Gavai &
Justice Sanjay Karol) while dealing with the bail
application for the offence of supporting and
raising funds for terrorist organization under
section 39 and 40 of the UAP Act relied upon NIA
v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali [(2019) 5 SCC 1]
and observed that:
"while dealing with the bail petition filed by the
accused against whom offences under chapter IV
and VI of UAPA have been made, the court has to
KL,J & PSS,J
Crl.A. No.912 of 2023 & batch
consider as to whether there are reasonable
grounds for believing that the accusation against
the accused is prima facie true. The bench also
observed that distinction between the words "not
guilty" as used in TADA, MCOCA and NDPS Act
as against the words "prima facie" in the UAPA
as held in Watali's Case (supra) to state that a
degree of satisfaction required in the case of "not
guilty" is much stronger than the satisfaction
required in a case where the words used are
"prima facie"
26. In the case of Sudesh Kedia v. Union of India
[(2021) 4 SCC 704] the Bench of Justice
Nageswara Rao and Justice S. Ravindra Bhat while
dealing with a bail application for the offence u/s.
17, 18 and 21 of the UAP Act relied upon the
principle propounded in Watali's case (supra) and
observed that:
"the expression "prima facie" would mean that
the materials/evidence collated by the
investigating agency in reference to the accusation
against the accused concerned must prevail until
contradicted and overcome or disproved by other
evidence, and on the face of it, shows that
complicity of such accused in the commission of
the stated offence. It must be good and sufficient
on its face to establish a given fact or the chain of
facts constituting the stated offence, unless
rebutted or contradicted." "
20. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, it is relevant to note
that the allegations leveled against the appellants - accused are that
they are active members of PFI, some of them are holding positions in
KL,J & PSS,J
Crl.A. No.912 of 2023 & batch
District Units, they have provoked Muslim Youth to join in the said
Organization and to act against the Government, BJP/RSS and other
Hindu Organizations; recruiting the Youth, sending them for terror
camps, training them for killing persons by attacking on vulnerable
body parts and imparting weapon training etc. Accused Nos.32, 33, 34
and 35 had participated in the terror camps held at Heaven Garden
Function Hall, Kurnool during January/February, 2021. They have
administered oath to Muslim Youth taking advantage of their financial
position to resort antisocial activities which are detrimental to the
internal security of the State.
21. It is relevant to note that PFI was banned on 22.09.2022
and the aforesaid camp was held at Heaven Garden Function Hall,
Kurnool during January/February, 2021. By that time, there was no
ban on PFI. The object of PFI was conducting welfare activities
which are useful to the downtrodden people including distribution of
ration kits, food during Ramzan, organizing blood donation camps,
school chalo campaign for giving school uniforms, books and
scholarships for the poor Muslim students. It is also conducting Yoga
classes. At the same time, the appellants herein, under the guise of
the aforesaid activities cannot resort to illegal activities. As stated
KL,J & PSS,J
Crl.A. No.912 of 2023 & batch
above, there are serious allegations against them. They have used
Code words, like Book-1, Book-2 and Book-3 etc.
22. PFI was formed in the year 2010. Raid was conducted in
the house of accused No.1 at Nizamabad on 27.09.2022, by which
date, PFI was banned. Even as per NIA, the appellants herein did not
participate in any activity after imposition of ban on PFI. The counter
and material filed by the NIA would reveal that no material was seized
from the appellants. The only apprehension of the NIA is that they
have recorded the statements of protected witnesses, there is every
possibility of the appellants threatening them and interfering with trial,
in which event, the Special Court will not be in a position to conduct
fair trial.
23. It is apt to note that if the appellants threaten any witness
including protected witnesses or interfere with fair trial, NIA can as
well file an application seeking cancellation of bail. But, it cannot be
a ground to oppose bail or deny bail by this Court. The appellants are
in jail since last 18 months i.e., from 06.07.2022, 19.09.2022 and
22.09.2022 respectively. It is also apt to note that there is no loss of
KL,J & PSS,J
Crl.A. No.912 of 2023 & batch
property and loss of life of any person. At the same time, the
appellants cannot resort to illegal activities.
24. It is also apt to note that Section - 2 (k) of UAPA defines
'terrorist act'; Section - 2 (o) defines 'unlawful activity'; Section - 2
(p) defines 'unlawful association'; and Section - 15 deals with
'terrorist act'. In the said provisions, there is no mention that
provoking, recruitment, administering oath, sending to training camps
etc., which are the allegations leveled against the appellants, amount
to 'terrorist act'. Section - 18 of the UAPA deals with punishment for
conspiracy etc. Section - 18A deals with 'punishment for organizing
of terrorist camps', Section - 18B deals with punishment for recruiting
of any person or persons for terrorist act' which says that whoever
recruits or causes to be recruited any person or persons for
commission of a terrorist act etc. are liable for punishment. It is only
a penal provision. Ultimately it has to be proved by NIA by
producing evidence.
25. Admittedly, in the present case, the Investigating Officer
has already completed investigation and laid charge sheet. There are
329 witnesses and many documents were filed by the NIA. It is at the
KL,J & PSS,J
Crl.A. No.912 of 2023 & batch
stage of 207 Cr.P.C. Definitely, trial will take certain time. As
discussed above, the appellants are in jail since last 18 months i.e.,
06.07.2022, 19.09.2022 and 22.09.2022 respectively. Accused No.28
is a Welder; accused Nos.32 and 34 are doing pickle business;
accused No.33 is a vegetable vendor; accused Nos.5 is doing a petty
business, while accused No.24 is running a chicken shop and accused
No.7 is running a Photostat shop; accused No.16 is a painter, while
accused No.35 is an electrician. Right guaranteed to them under
Article - 21 of the Constitution of India is also to be considered.
26. As discussed above, the only apprehension of the NIA is
that the appellants may threaten the witnesses including protected
witnesses and may interfere with the trial in which event the Special
Court may not be in a position to conduct fair trial. In such an event,
NIA is at liberty to file an application seeking cancellation of bail.
27. It is apt to note that the Apex Court referred to the factors
to be borne in mind while considering an application for bail in
Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v Ashis Chatterjee 17, and the said factors are
as follows:
"(i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe
that the Accused had committed the offence;
. (2010) 14 SCC 496
KL,J & PSS,J
Crl.A. No.912 of 2023 & batch
(ii) nature and gravity of the accusation;
(iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction;
(iv) danger of the Accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail;
(v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the Accused;
(vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated;
(vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; and
(viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail."
28. The Apex Court in S.S. Mhetre v. State of
Maharashtra18, held that society has a vital interest in grant or refusal
of bail because every criminal offence is an offence against the State.
The order granting or refusing bail must reflect perfect balance
between the conflicting interests, namely, sanctity of individual liberty
and the interest of society.
29. In Gudikanti Narasimhulu v. State 19, the Apex Court
held that the issue of bail is one of liberty, justice, public safety and
burden of the public treasury, all of which insist that a developed
jurisprudence of bail is integral to a socially sensitized judicial
process. After all, personal liberty of an accused or convict is
fundamental, suffering lawful eclipse only in terms of 'procedure
established by law'. The last four words of Article - 21 are the life of
that human right.
. AIR 2011 SC 312
. (1978) 1 SCC 240
KL,J & PSS,J
Crl.A. No.912 of 2023 & batch
30. As stated above, vide orders dated 25.01.2024 in I.A. No.1
of 2024, this Court granted interim bail to him ordering to release on
29.01.2024 by 11.00 A.M., with a direction to surrender before the
Superintendent, Central Prison, Chanchalguda, Hyderabad, on
09.02.2024 by 11.00 A.M. Like-wise, as the elder brother of accused
No.34 passed away, he filed an application vide I.A. No.2 of 2024
seeking interim bail. This Court vide order dated 11.03.2024 granted
interim bail for a period of ten (10) days i.e., from 12.03.2024 to
21.03.2024 with a direction to the Superintendent, Central Prison,
Chenchalguda, Hyderabad, to release accused No.34 on 12.03.2024 by
11.00 A.M. on his furnishing a personal bond for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees
Twenty Five Thousand Only). During the said period of interim bail,
the petitioner was directed not indulge in any criminal activity.
However, he shall report before the Station House Officer, Lalapet
Police Station, Guntur City, Andhra Pradesh State on 18.03.2024
between 10.00 A.M. and 5.00 P.M. On completion of the said period,
he shall surrender before the Superintendent, Central Prison,
Chenchalguda, Hyderabad, on 21.03.2024 by 5.00 P.M. There is no
complaint against them that they have violated the conditions imposed
by this Court.
KL,J & PSS,J
Crl.A. No.912 of 2023 & batch
31. As stated above, as on the date of participation of the
appellants in illegal acts as PFI Members, PFI was not banned as it
was banned only on 27.09.2022 by the Central Government. The
appellants were arrested and they were taken into police custody and
interrogated at length. The entire investigation was completed and
laid charge sheet and supplementary charge sheets against them by
NIA. In the light of the same, nothing remains to investigate by the
NIA except to proceed with trial before the Special Court against the
appellants in accordance with procedure laid down under Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973.
32. The appellants were arrested on different dates i.e.,
06.07.2022, 19.09.2022 and 22.09.2022 respectively, and since then
they are languishing in the jail. Therefore, the appellants are entitled
for bail. However, in view of gravity of the offences said to have
committed by the appellants and to secure their presence before the
Special Court to proceed with trial, some stringent conditions to be
imposed while granting bail. The said aspects were not considered by
the Special Court while dismissing the bail applications filed by the
appellants. Therefore, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside.
However, the findings reached by this Court in granting bail are only
KL,J & PSS,J
Crl.A. No.912 of 2023 & batch
prima facie views expressed by this Court in deciding the present
appeals and the same will not have any bearing on the Special Court
while deciding the main Sessions Cases.
33. All these Criminal Appeals are allowed and the impugned
orders, dated 13.12.2023, 15.12.2023, 19.09.2023, 08.12.2023 and
29.12.2023 in Crl.M.P. Nos.1623, 1663, 1621, 1184, 1451 and 1839
of 2023 in Spl.S.C.No.1 of 2023 and the impugned orders dated
14.08.2023 and 13.10.2023 in Crl.M.P.Nos.904 and 1361 of 2023 in
Spl.S.C. No.2 of 2023, respectively passed by learned IV Additional
Metropolitan Sessions Judge - cum - Special Court for NIA Cases,
Nampally, Hyderabad, are hereby set aside. The appellants - accused
Nos.5, 24, 7, 16, 28, 32, 33, 34 and 35, are enlarged on bail with the
following conditions:
i) The appellants - accused Nos.5, 24, 7, 16, 28, 32, 33, 34 and 35
shall execute a personal bond for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty
Five Thousand Only) each with two (02) sureties each for a like
sum each to the satisfaction of IV Additional Metropolitan
Sessions Judge - cum - Special Court for NIA Cases, Nampally,
Hyderabad;
KL,J & PSS,J
Crl.A. No.912 of 2023 & batch
ii) The appellants - accused Nos.5, 7, 24 and 28 shall report before
the Station House Officer, VI Town Police Station, Nizamabad
District once in a week i.e., on every Friday between 10.00
A.M. and 5.00 P.M. until further orders;
iii) The appellant - accused No.16 shall report before the Station
House Officer, Rural Police Station, Jagtial Town, Jagtial
District once in a week i.e., on every Friday between 10.00
A.M. and 5.00 P.M. until further orders;
iv) The appellants - accused Nos.32, 33, 34 and 35 shall report
before the Station House Officer, Lalapet Police Station, Guntur
City, Andhra Pradesh State once in a week i.e., on every Friday
between 10.00 A.M. and 5.00 P.M. until further orders;
v) They shall not commit similar or any other offences during bail
period;
vi) They shall not threat, intimidate or influence the prosecution
witnesses including protected witnesses;
vii) They shall not interfere with the trial in the said Cases in any
manner directly or indirectly;
viii) They shall surrender their Passports, if not surrendered before
the Special Court; and
KL,J & PSS,J
Crl.A. No.912 of 2023 & batch
ix) They shall co-operate with the Special Court in disposal of the
aforesaid Sessions Cases in accordance with law as
expeditiously as possible.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in the
appeals shall stand closed.
_________________
K. LAKSHMAN, J
_________________
P. SREE SUDHA, J
20th March, 2024
Note:
The Registrar (Judicial-I) is directed to return
C.C. of statement of protected witness recorded
under Sec.164 of Cr.P.C. to the NIA, Hyderabad,
under due acknowledgment. (B/O.) Mgr
