HC Grants Bail to Appellant as There Were No Evidences Available Connecting Appellant to Terrorist Acts at Its Rented Premises

Case Details: Jalaluddin Khan v. Union of India - [2024] 165 taxmann.com 647 (SC)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• • Abhay S. Oka & Augustine George Masih, JJ.

Facts of the Case

In the instant case, Bihar Police received information about a plan to disturb the Prime Minister’s proposed visit to Bihar by some suspected persons who had assembled in the Phulwarisharif area.

On secret information, a raid was carried out by Police Officers of PS Phulwarisharif at a subject building owned by the appellant, and it was found that the first floor of the said building was given on rent to one A, who had been an active member of a banned terrorist organization-SIMI.

It was also alleged that A was using the subject premises for objectionable activities of an organization called Popular Front of India (PFI). Thus, a chargesheet was filed, and in the said chargesheet, A was shown as accused no 1, and the appellant was shown as accused no 2.

The appellant was arrested, but the trial had not made any progress. The appellant applied for bail before the Special Court under UAPA, which was rejected. Hence, the appellant and co-accused applied for bail before the High Court. By the impugned judgment, prayer for bail made by the appellant was rejected, while bail was granted to a co-accused.

It was noted that assuming that co-accused were indulging in terrorist acts or were making any act preparatory to the commission of terrorist acts, there was absolutely no material on record to show that there was any conspiracy to commit any terrorist act to which the appellant was a party.

Supreme Court Held

The Supreme Court observed that no material was produced on record to show that the appellant advocated, abetted, advised, or incited the commission of terrorist acts or any preparatory activity or that the appellant had taken part in or had committed unlawful activities as defined in UAPA.

The Supreme Court held that there was no allegation in the charge sheet that the appellant was a member of any terrorist organisation. Further, PFI was not a terrorist organization, as was evident from the first schedule. Therefore, on plain reading of the charge sheet, it was not possible to record a conclusion that there were reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against the appellant of commission of offences punishable under UAPA was prima facie valid.

Further, the Supreme Court held that it was 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 UAPA was prima facie valid. Therefore, the appellant was to be enlarged on bail until the conclusion of the trial on appropriate terms and conditions.

List of Cases Referred to

• • Shoma Kanti Sen v. State of Maharashtra and another (2024) 6 SCC 591 (para 2)
  • Gurwinder Singh v. State of Punjab and Another (2024) 5 SCC 403 (para 13)
  • National Investigation Agency v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali (2019) 5 SCC 1 (para 13)
  • Thwaha Fasal v. Union of India (2022) 14 SCC 766 (para 14).