Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Mahesh Sitaram Raut, was arrested in connection with FIR No. RC-01/2020/NIA/MUM registered by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) for offences under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAP Act). The case arose from the Elgaar Parishad program held on 31.12.2017 in Pune, which was followed by violence on 01.01.2018 at Bhima Koregaon. The appellant, a researcher and teacher, was accused of being part of a conspiracy to incite violence and commit terrorist acts. He filed a bail application under Section 439 CrPC, which was rejected by the Special Judge (NIA) on 23.11.2021. He then appealed under Section 21(4) of the NIA Act. The High Court examined the material on record, including the chargesheet and the appellant's role. The court noted that the appellant was not present at the site of violence and his alleged involvement was limited to attending meetings and sharing ideological material. The court held that the bar under Section 43D(5) of the UAP Act is not absolute and if no prima facie case is made out, bail can be granted. The court found that the allegations against the appellant did not prima facie establish a conspiracy or terrorist act. The court emphasized that mere association with alleged co-conspirators or expression of radical views does not constitute a criminal offence unless there is evidence of an agreement to commit an illegal act. The court also considered the appellant's long period of incarceration and the fact that trial was not likely to conclude soon. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal and granted bail to the appellant on certain conditions.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Bail - Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 - Section 43D(5) - Bail Bar - The court considered whether the bar under Section 43D(5) applies when the accusations against the accused do not prima facie make out a case under the UAP Act. Held that the bar is not absolute and if the court finds no prima facie case, bail can be granted (Paras 10-15). B) Criminal Law - Conspiracy - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 120-B - Mere attendance at meetings and sharing of ideological material does not constitute criminal conspiracy unless there is evidence of an agreement to commit an illegal act. Held that the appellant's role as a researcher and teacher, without active participation in violence, does not establish conspiracy (Paras 16-20). C) Criminal Law - Terrorist Act - Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 - Sections 13, 16, 17, 18, 18B, 20, 38, 39 - The court examined whether the appellant's alleged acts of inciting violence through speeches and writings amount to a terrorist act. Held that the material on record does not show any direct incitement or preparation for a terrorist act, and the appellant's activities were within the realm of academic discourse (Paras 21-25).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellant is entitled to bail under Section 439 CrPC read with Section 21(4) of the NIA Act, given the bar under Section 43D(5) of the UAP Act, and whether the allegations against him prima facie make out a case of conspiracy or terrorist act.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 23.11.2021 passed by the Special Judge (NIA), Greater Mumbai, is set aside. The appellant is directed to be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with one or more sureties, subject to conditions including not tampering with evidence, not leaving the country without permission, and appearing before the trial court as required.
Law Points
- Bail under UAP Act
- Section 43D(5) bail bar
- prima facie case
- conspiracy
- terrorist act
- Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act
- 1967
- National Investigation Agency Act
- 2008
- Section 439 CrPC
