2024 (8) TMI 775 - SC - Indian Laws

Rejection of bail under IPC and UAPA - allegation is that, the first floor premises are being used for objectional activities of an organisation called Popular Front of India (PFI) - reasonable grounds for believing that the accusations against the appellant are prima facie true, or not - Section 43D (5) of the UAPA - HELD THAT - There is nothing in the charge sheet which shows that the appellant has taken part in or has committed unlawful activities as defined in the UAPA. There is no specific material to show that the appellant advocated, abetted, or incited commission of any unlawful activities. A terrorist act is defined in Section 15(1). Assuming that the co-accused were indulging in terrorist acts or were making any act preparatory to the commission of terrorist acts, there is absolutely no material on record to show that there was any conspiracy to commit any terrorist act to which the appellant was a party. There is no material produced on record to show that the appellant advocated, abetted, advised, or incited the commission of terrorist acts or any preparatory activity. Taking the charge sheet as correct, it is not possible to record a prima facie finding that the appellant knowingly facilitated the commission or preparation of terrorist acts by letting out the first floor premises. Again, there is no allegation in the charge sheet against the appellant that he organised any camps to impart training in terrorism. On plain reading of the charge sheet, it is not possible to record a conclusion that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against the appellant of commission of offences punishable under the UAPA is prima facie true - it is impossible to record a prima facie finding that there were reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against the appellant of commission of offences under the UAPA was prima facie true. No antecedents of the appellant have been brought on record. There was no reason to reject the bail application filed by the appellant - appellant is directed to be enlarged on bail on the terms and conditions as may be fixed by the Special Court. For that purpose, the appellant shall be produced before the Special Court within a maximum of 7 days from today - Appeal allowed.

Issues Involved:
1. Prosecution of the appellant under IPC and UAPA.
2. Rejection of bail by the Special Court and High Court.
3. Allegations linking the appellant to the activities of PFI.
4. Examination of evidence and statements, including CCTV footage and witness testimonies.
5. Application of Section 43D(5) of UAPA regarding bail.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Prosecution of the appellant under IPC and UAPA:
The appellant is being prosecuted for offences under Sections 121, 121A, and 122 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 13, 18, 18A, and 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA). A charge sheet was filed on 7th January 2023, showing the appellant as accused no.2. The appellant's bail application was rejected by the Special Court under UAPA and subsequently by the High Court.

2. Rejection of bail by the Special Court and High Court:
The appellant's bail application was rejected by the Special Court and the High Court. The High Court granted bail to a co-accused but rejected the appellant's prayer for bail. The appellant's counsel argued that there was no material linking the appellant to the offences under UAPA, and the appellant's case satisfied the tests laid down by Section 43D(5) of UAPA, as there were no reasonable grounds for believing the accusations against the appellant were prima facie true.

3. Allegations linking the appellant to the activities of PFI:
The prosecution alleged that the appellant's wife owned Ahmad Palace, and the appellant clandestinely rented the first floor to accused no.1, Athar Parwez, for activities related to the Popular Front of India (PFI). The appellant allegedly attended a meeting-cum-training on 29th May 2022, where subjects such as the expansion of PFI, training of PFI members, and plans for Muslim empowerment were discussed. The appellant was also accused of tampering with evidence by shifting items from the first floor before a police raid on 11th July 2022.

4. Examination of evidence and statements, including CCTV footage and witness testimonies:
The prosecution relied on statements from protected witnesses and CCTV footage showing the appellant and accused no.1 shifting items from the first floor of Ahmad Palace. However, the appellant's counsel argued that the appellant installed CCTV cameras, which would be unlikely if he were involved in objectionable activities. The charge sheet mentioned the recovery of incriminating documents during the raid, but there was no specific recovery from the appellant. The statement of protected witness Z, as reproduced in the charge sheet, was found to be distorted and did not match the actual statement.

5. Application of Section 43D(5) of UAPA regarding bail:
Section 43D(5) of UAPA states that an accused shall not be released on bail if there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusations are prima facie true. The Court referred to the case of National Investigation Agency v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali, which laid down guidelines for applying the bail limitations under UAPA. The Court held that the material on record did not show that the appellant took part in or committed unlawful activities or conspired to commit terrorist acts. The appellant's son conducted the negotiations for renting the first floor, and there was no material to show that the appellant knowingly facilitated terrorist activities.

Conclusion:
The Court concluded that there were no reasonable grounds for believing that the accusations against the appellant were prima facie true. The Special Court and the High Court did not consider the material in the charge sheet objectively. The Court emphasized that "bail is the rule and jail is an exception" and granted bail to the appellant. The impugned orders were set aside, and the appellant was directed to be enlarged on bail on terms and conditions to be fixed by the Special Court. The findings were limited to the appellant's case and would not affect the trial or the cases of the co-accused.

← Previous Next →