Case Note & Summary
The Bombay High Court allowed three criminal appeals filed by accused nos. 2, 3, and 6 in a case arising from FIR No. 20/2021 registered by the Anti Terrorist Squad, Nashik. The case pertained to an inaugural ceremony of the Popular Front of India (PFI) office in Malegaon on 14 June 2022, where a secret meeting was allegedly held. The prosecution alleged that the accused conspired to wage war against the Government of India, foster hatred against other religions, and impose Sharia law. The FIR was registered under Sections 121-A, 153-A, 120-B, 109, 116, 201 IPC and Section 13(1)(b) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. The appellants' bail applications were rejected by the Special Judge, Nashik. The High Court heard arguments from senior counsels for the appellants and the APP for the State. The court examined the material on record, including affidavits-in-reply from investigating officers. The court found that the allegations against the appellants primarily involved receipt and retention of messages, not circulation or incitement. The court held that the acts alleged did not constitute 'unlawful activity' under Section 2(o) of the UAP Act, as they did not involve secession or overawing the government. The court also noted that the alleged conspiracy to achieve 'Vision 2047' was too distant and not supported by any overt act. The court observed that the offences under Sections 153-A, 153-B, 295-A IPC were more appropriate, which are bailable or carry lesser punishment. The court considered the length of incarceration (over one and a half years) and the likely delay in trial. Consequently, the court set aside the impugned orders and granted bail to all three appellants on appropriate conditions.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 439 - Bail - Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 - Section 13(1)(b) - Prima Facie Case - The court considered whether the allegations against the appellants made out a prima facie case for the offences charged. Held that mere receipt and retention of messages, without circulation or incitement, does not constitute 'unlawful activity' under Section 2(o) of the UAP Act. The acts alleged were more appropriately covered under Sections 153-A, 153-B, 295-A IPC, which are bailable or less serious. (Paras 5-8) B) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 121-A - Conspiracy to Wage War - The court examined whether the alleged conspiracy to achieve 'Vision 2047' amounted to waging war against the Government of India. Held that the goal was too distant and the acts were at best preparation, not amounting to conspiracy under Section 121-A IPC. The appellants had not taken any overt act to further the alleged conspiracy. (Paras 6-8) C) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 201 - Destruction of Evidence - The court noted that even if the appellant had deleted data from phones, the maximum punishment under Section 201 IPC is three years, and the appellant had already been in custody for a considerable period. Held that this factor weighed in favor of granting bail. (Para 7) D) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 439 - Bail - Length of Incarceration - The court considered that the appellants had been in custody for over one and a half years, while the trial was likely to take time. Held that continued detention would be unjust, especially when the offences alleged were not made out prima facie. (Paras 5-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellants are entitled to bail under Section 439 CrPC in a case involving allegations of conspiracy to wage war against the Government of India and unlawful activity under the UAP Act.
Final Decision
The Bombay High Court allowed the appeals, set aside the impugned orders, and granted bail to all three appellants on appropriate conditions.
Law Points
- Bail under Section 439 CrPC
- Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act
- 1967
- Section 13(1)(b)
- Section 2(o)
- Section 121-A IPC
- Section 153-A IPC
- Section 153-B IPC
- Section 295-A IPC
- Section 201 IPC
- Conspiracy
- Waging war
- Prima facie case
- Length of incarceration
