Case Note & Summary
The appellant, A.Alfasith, was arrested by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) in connection with RC No.03/2024/NIA/CHE for alleged offences under Sections 196 and 353 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Sections 13, 38, and 39 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). The prosecution alleged that the appellant, a supporter and member of a proscribed organization, downloaded ISIS-related content from social media, endorsed its ideology, and created a WhatsApp group named 'Black Soldiers' to carry out unlawful activities, including spreading videos and images to incite unrest and threaten national unity. The appellant was arrested on 28 January 2025 and remained in judicial custody. He filed a bail application before the Special Court under the NIA Act, which was rejected on 13 October 2025. Aggrieved, he filed the present criminal appeal under Section 21(4) of the NIA Act. The appellant contended that he was falsely implicated based on communal profiling and that the allegations were vague. The respondent opposed bail, arguing that the appellant actively propagated ISIS ideology and recruited vulnerable youths. The High Court, after hearing both sides, examined the material on record and found that the prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case that the appellant committed a terrorist act. The court noted that the allegations pertained to sharing of propaganda material without evidence of direct involvement in any terrorist activity. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal, set aside the Special Court's order, and granted bail to the appellant subject to stringent conditions, including furnishing a bond, surrendering his passport, and reporting to the NIA office periodically.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Bail - Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 - Section 43D(5) - Prima Facie Case - The court considered whether the allegations of downloading and sharing ISIS-related content and creating a WhatsApp group 'Black Soldiers' constitute a prima facie case for denial of bail under UAPA. Held that mere sharing of propaganda material without evidence of direct involvement in a terrorist act does not satisfy the stringent conditions for bail denial. (Paras 2-10) B) Criminal Procedure - Bail - National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 - Section 21(4) - Appeal Against Rejection - The appeal was filed under Section 21(4) of the NIA Act against the Special Court's order rejecting bail. The High Court held that the appellant is entitled to bail as the prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case of commission of a terrorist act. (Paras 1-12) C) Constitutional Law - Right to Liberty - Article 21 - Bail - The court emphasized the fundamental right to liberty and held that prolonged incarceration without trial violates Article 21. The appellant was granted bail subject to conditions to ensure his presence and non-interference with the investigation. (Paras 11-12)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellant is entitled to bail under the stringent provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, particularly Section 43D(5), given the allegations of sharing ISIS propaganda and creating a WhatsApp group 'Black Soldiers'.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the Special Court dated 13 October 2025, and granted bail to the appellant subject to conditions including furnishing a bond of Rs. 25,000 with two sureties, surrendering his passport, reporting to the NIA office every Monday until further orders, and not tampering with evidence or contacting witnesses.
Law Points
- Bail under UAPA Section 43D(5) requires prima facie evidence of offence
- mere sharing of ISIS content without direct involvement in terrorist act does not satisfy stringent bail conditions
- Section 21(4) of NIA Act provides for appeal against bail rejection
- presumption of innocence until proven guilty
- right to liberty under Article 21 of Constitution.
