Criminal Law : UAPA Accused Secures Bail From Supreme Court

Criminal Law : UAPA - Accused Secures Bail From Supreme Court 

In this case, the Appellant was arrested on 12.07.2022. He has undergone custody for more than two years and four months. Chargesheet was filed on 07.01.2023 but till December 2024, charges have not been framed which is an admitted position. There are 40 accused and 354 witnesses cited by the prosecution to be examined. There can be no doubt that the trial is not likely to complete soon, and as has been laid down by various judgments the Appellant cannot be allowed to languish in jail indefinitely and that too without a trial. If such an approach is allowed Article 21 of the Constitution of India would stand violated. Bail was granted. Allegations around : S.121, S.121A, S.122 S.153A, S.153B of IPC and S.13, 17, 18, 18A, 18B and 20 of UAPA, 1967.

Allegations against the Appellant are that he is an active member of the Popular Front of India and he along with his associates were planning to cause disturbance during the proposed visit of Prime Minister of India to Patna. During the raid certain recoveries were carried out, prominent amongst them was a document titled “India 2047 towards rule of Islam in India, internal Document not for circulation”. Assertions have been made in the complaint on the basis of the documents seized that the Appellant along with the other members of the PFI aimed at disrupting the sovereignty of India and cause disaffection against the country.

NIA re-registered a case as R.C31/2022/NIA/DLI dated 22.07.2022 under Sections 120, 120B, 121, 121A, 153A, and Section 13 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.

The most prominent evidence is the testimony of the protected witness ‘Z’ who was alleged to be inducted into the PFI for providing physical training to its members. In his statement, there is no mention of the Appellant taking part in or leading any of those meetings/trainings where physical training was imparted teaching attack and defensive techniques using sticks, knives or other weapons. As regards the meeting held on 29th May 2022 at Ahmad Palace what has been stated by him is merely that the Appellant along with 40-45 persons participated in the meeting which was presided over by one Riyaz Firnagipet. In this meeting, issues like expansion of organisation, strengthening of Muslims on political, educational and administrative fronts were discussed. Nothing incriminating is alleged to have been mentioned which would attract charges under the UAPA, 1967 especially the ones which have been alleged to have been committed by the Appellant.

There is nothing incriminating against the Appellant in the statement given by witness “Z” with regard to the present meeting. The witness has merely stated that the meeting was convened in view of the derogatory statements made by one Nupur Sharma against Prophet Mohammad. 

It is worth mentioning here that the PFI of which the Appellant was a member has not been declared a terrorist organisation within the meaning of Section 2(m) of the UAPA, 1967 [at least till December 2021]. It was also found that the PFI is not mentioned as a terrorist organisation in the first schedule of UAPA, 1967.

As regards protected witness ‘X’, although he had identified the Appellant to be involved in the protest/demonstration held on 09.06.2022 against the remarks made by Nupur Sharma against Prophet Mohammad where provocative slogans were raised. The allegation against the Appellant is that he had been encouraging others to do so. Beyond that, there is nothing which is alleged against the Appellant which would bring the act or omission of the Appellant within the ambit of the alleged offences committed by him under the UAPA, 1967.

Allegations against the Appellant with regard to having collected Zakat from the people for helping the PFI or recruiting members of PFI. Suffice it to say at this stage, that on the day such activities were carried out by the Appellant, PFI was not a banned organisation. None of the witnesses or the protected witnesses stated that the money so collected in the form of Zakat was ever misappropriated by the Appellant or was in any manner used for illegal activities. The statement of the protected witnesses has not mentioned anything specific that would be attributed to the Appellant which could prima facie attract charges under the UAPA, 1967. 

Another aspect which cannot be ignored is that the material which has been allegedly recovered from the Appellant especially the documents which according to the prosecution contained the incriminating contents as per the seizure memo were from the second floor. As is apparent from the rent deed, on which the prosecution itself has placed reliance, only the first floor was rented out of Ahmad Palace to the Appellant, and he was in exclusive possession thereof. This also raises some doubt with regard to the recovery of the material.

Case Reference is Athar Parwez v. Union of India [2024] GCtR 4500 (SC)