PFI Not Declared As Terrorist Organisation: Patna High Court Grants Bail To 2 Accused Of Planning To Cause Disturbance During PM’s Visit
The Patna High Court said that the rigours of Section 43D(5) of the UAPA would not stand against the prayer of the accused persons for grant of bail.
Patna High Court
The Patna High Court has granted bail to two persons who were accused of planning to cause disturbance during the proposed visit of Prime Minister Narendra Modi to Patna.
The Court was deciding two Criminal Appeals filed by the accused persons against the Order of the Special Judge which rejected their prayer for bail.
The Court referred to the Judgment of the Supreme Court by which an alleged PFI member was granted bail with respect to this case.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Justice S.B. PD. Singh observed, “This Court finds that what has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court prima-facie in paragraph ‘27’ that in the chargesheet, there is no allegation that the appellant was a member of terrorist gang or organisation equally applies in case of these appellants. There is no such allegation that the appellants are members of a terrorist gang or an organisation. The PFI of which the appellants are said to be members has not been declared a terrorist organisation within the meaning of Section 2(m) of the UA(P) Act, 1967. The UA(P) Act, 1967 would also be applicable to the case of the appellants.”
The Bench said that the rigours of Section 43D(5) of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967 (UAPA) would not stand against the prayer of the accused persons for grant of bail.
Advocate Kundan Kumar Ojha represented the Appellants/Accused while ASG K.N. Singh represented the Respondent/Union of India (NIA).
Facts of the Case
As per the prosecution case, the informant alleged that on July 11, 2022, he got an information that some miscreants are planning to do some occurrence during the proposed Patna visit of PM Modi and are doing training for a fortnight for this purpose. Based on this information, the Officer-in-Charge brought it to the notice of the senior officers. On reaching the spot, he noticed that some unknown persons were holding meeting on the second floor of the Ahmed Palace during last two months and visit of unknown persons were frequent there. In the meantime, Md. Jalaluddin and Athar Parvez, who were the owners of ‘Ahmed Palace’, came there.
On search, a literature was found namely “India 2047 towards Rule of Islamic India, Internal Document not for circulation”. 30 pamphlets written in Urdu and 25 pamphlets written in Hindi of Popular Front of India (PFI), 49 flags made of clothes, red, green and white bearing blue colour star on the flag, booklets printed in Urdu were also found. On enquiring, Athar Parvez allegedly told that he was an active member of SIMI organization. As regards the Appellants, it was alleged that they were involved in channelizing the illegal funds to PFI from UAE and Saudi Arabia to various suspects in India for committing terrorist acts. Hence, they were arrested.
Reasoning
The High Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, noted, “Even assuming for the sake of argument that some money were transferred by these two appellants which they claim to be about Rs.40-50,000/- for commission, there is no specific material in the charge-sheet to show that these appellants had taken part or have committed unlawful activities as defined in the UA(P) Act.”
The Court said that there is no prima-facie material on the record that the money said to have been sent by the Appellants in the account of Sajjad Alam were used for illegal activities post-ban period.
“So far as these appellants are concerned, in absence of any material on the record in the charge sheet showing that they were collecting funds for any person knowing that such funds are likely to be used, in full or in part, by such person or persons or by a terrorist organization or by a terrorist gang or by an individual terrorist to commit a terrorist act, it would not be possible to opine that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against the appellants is prima facie true”, it further remarked.
The Court took note of the fact that the Appellants are in custody for over two years and in case of Athar Parwez, the Supreme Court has having taken note of the period of incarceration as well decided to enlarge him on bail.
“… we are of the considered opinion that these appellants would deserve privilege of bail during pendency of the trial subject to such conditions as may be imposed by the learned Special Court as has been ordered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Athar Parwez (supra), this Court would also direct the Special Court to enlarge the appellants on bail immediately on appropriate terms and conditions after hearing counsel for the respondent”, it also directed.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Appeals and granted bail to the accused persons.
Cause Title- Abid K.M. v. The Union of India through National Investigation Agency (Case Number: CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.875 of 2024)
Appearance:
Appellants: Advocate Kundan Kumar Ojha
Respondent: ASG Krishna Nandan Singh, Spl. PP. Arvind Kumar, Advocate Shivaditya Dhari Sinha, and Paritosh Parimal.
