9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Grant of bail under Section 34(4) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002 (POTA) based on the application filed by the appellant in a case involving charges under Section 3/4/5/20/21 of the POTA and other relevant sections. Analysis: The judgment by the Delhi High Court, delivered by Devinder Kumar Jain and A.K. Sikri, JJ., pertains to an appeal under Section 34(4) of the POTA against the order of the Special Judge, POTA, New Delhi, denying bail to the appellant. The case originated from a raid conducted based on intelligence inputs, resulting in the recovery of arms and ammunition from a truck. The appellant, accused of delivering Hawala money, was arrested, and a chargesheet was filed against him and others. The appellant's counsel argued that the prosecution's case did not amount to a "terrorist act" under POTA, emphasizing the lack of knowledge about the money's use for terrorism. The State's counsel contended that evidence proved the appellant's involvement in terrorist activities, justifying denial of bail. The court examined the relevant provisions of POTA, particularly Sections 3 and 22. Section 3 defines "terrorist act," requiring intent for an act to be considered as such. Section 22 criminalizes fund raising for a terrorist organization, mandating knowledge or reasonable suspicion of the funds' use for terrorism. The court emphasized the necessity of knowledge about the funds' end use for the application of Section 22(3) of POTA, stressing the intent to promote or facilitate terrorist activities. After thorough analysis, the court concluded that merely delivering money, without proven knowledge of its intended use for terrorism, did not warrant an offense under POTA. The court highlighted the importance of establishing the second condition - knowledge of the funds' end use - alongside the delivery of funds. While expressing doubt about the appellant's knowledge, the court refrained from making definitive conclusions to avoid prejudicing the trial. Consequently, the court granted bail to the appellant, emphasizing that the decision was provisional and subject to trial evidence. In the final ruling, the court directed the appellant's release on bail upon fulfilling specified conditions, cautioning against using the judgment as precedent in future proceedings. The judgment was a prima facie assessment for the bail application only, with restrictions on its applicability beyond the current case. This detailed analysis of the judgment showcases the court's meticulous examination of legal provisions, factual circumstances, and the application of POTA in the context of the appellant's bail application, resulting in a reasoned decision granting bail.
|
