Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Zabiulla @ Zabibulla, accused No.16 in Spl.C.C.No.320/2020, filed a criminal appeal under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, challenging the order dated 08.07.2022 passed by the XLIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Special Court for trial of NIA cases, Bengaluru, dismissing his bail petition in Crl.Misc.No.6090/2022. The case arose from a written complaint by Inspector Niranjan Kumar C of CCB, Economic Offences Wing, Bengaluru, on 10.01.2020, alleging that Mehaboob Pasha (A-1) and Khaja Moideen (A-2) formed a terror group involved in terrorism-related activities. The appellant was arrested and charged under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. The appellant sought bail on grounds of being a student and having no criminal antecedents, but the prosecution opposed citing his active participation in the conspiracy and the stringent bail provisions under Section 43D(5) of UAPA. The High Court, after hearing arguments, held that the bar under Section 43D(5) of UAPA applies and the appellant failed to make out a case for bail. The court noted the gravity of the offences, the appellant's prima facie involvement, and the risk of flight and tampering with evidence. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Bail - Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, Section 43D(5) - National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, Section 21(4) - Denial of Bail - The appellant, accused No.16 in a case involving formation of a terror group, challenged the rejection of his bail petition. The court held that the bar under Section 43D(5) of UAPA applies and the appellant failed to make out a case for bail, considering his prima facie involvement in the conspiracy and the serious nature of the offences. (Paras 1-10) B) Criminal Law - Bail - Flight Risk - The court noted that the appellant was a flight risk and there was likelihood of him tampering with evidence, as he was part of a larger conspiracy. (Paras 5-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellant is entitled to bail under the stringent provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, considering the allegations of being part of a terror group.
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed. The order of the Special Court rejecting bail is upheld.
Law Points
- Bail under Section 43D(5) of UAPA is subject to stringent conditions
- prima facie involvement in terrorist conspiracy is sufficient to deny bail
- gravity of offence and flight risk are relevant considerations
