Full Judgment Text
2024 INSC 995
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 5387 OF 2024
[ARISING OUT OF SLP (CRL) NO. 9209 OF 2024]
ATHAR PARWEZ … APPELLANT
Versus
UNION OF INDIA …. RESPONDENT
J U D G M E N T
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The Appellant herein has approached this Court
seeking bail during the pendency of trial after
dismissal of his bail application by the High Court of
Patna vide impugned Order dated 28.11.2023 in
Criminal Appeal (DB) No.516 of 2023. The
Appellant is booked as Accused No.01 in FIR No.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
KAVITA PAHUJA
Date: 2024.12.17
18:04:26 IST
Reason:
827 of 2022, which was registered at Police Station
Crl. Appeal No. of 2024 @ SLP(Crl)No.9209 of 2024 Page 1 of 27
Phulwari Sharif, Patna under Sections 120, 120-B,
121, 121A, 153A, 153B, & 34 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the “IPC”).
3. The Appellant along with a co-accused Jalaluddin
Khan alias Md. Jalaluddin was arrested on
12.07.2022. Allegations against the Appellant are
that he is an active member of the Popular Front of
India (hereinafter referred to as the “PFI”), and he
along with his associates were planning to cause
disturbance during the proposed visit of Prime
Minister of India to Patna, this led to the raid being
conducted on 11.07.2022 at first floor Ahmad
Palace, Phulwari Sharif, Patna which was taken on
rent by the Appellant from co-accused Md.
Jalaluddin.
4. 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
Crl. Appeal No. of 2024 @ SLP(Crl)No.9209 of 2024 Page 2 of 27
sovereignty of India and cause disaffection against
the country.
5. Keeping in view the seriousness of the allegations
and the offences involved, Government of India vide
Official Order dated 22.07.2022 directed the
National Investigating Agency (hereinafter referred
to as the “NIA”) to take up the investigation.
Accordingly, the NIA re-registered a case as R.C-
31/2022/NIA/DLI dated 22.07.2022 under Sections
120, 120B, 121, 121A, 153A, and Section 13 of the
of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967
(hereinafter referred to as the “UAPA 1967”) and
took up the investigation. After investigation,
chargesheet against the Appellant was filed on
07.01.2023 under Sections 121, 121A, 122, 153A &
153B of the IPC and Sections 13, 17, 18, 18A, 18B
& 20 of UAPA, 1967. However, charges till date have
not been framed.
6. The learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant has
asserted that the seizure of documents as has been
alleged from the rented accommodation of the
Appellant is highly suspicious and doubtful rather it
Crl. Appeal No. of 2024 @ SLP(Crl)No.9209 of 2024 Page 3 of 27
is concocted and manufactured. As per the seizure
memo/list, the recovery has been made from the
second floor of Ahmad Palace which according to the
prosecution itself was never in possession of the
Appellant rather it is the first floor which was on
rent with the Appellant. Even the rent deed on
which reliance has been placed mentions explicitly
about the first floor.
7. It is contended that going by the allegations against
the Appellant, no offence under the UAPA, 1967 or
even the predicate offence is made out. He submits
that primary allegations are with regard to the
alleged recovery seven-page document titled “India
2047 towards rule of Islam in India, internal
document, not for circulation” which contained
various recitals relatable to an Islamic rule which is
to be established in India. It is contended that there
are no independent witnesses to the alleged recovery
seizure memo/list. As also the said document does
not in any manner talk about any terrorist activities
or overt act to be carried out which would create
disharmony or religious hatred.
Crl. Appeal No. of 2024 @ SLP(Crl)No.9209 of 2024 Page 4 of 27
8. The learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant further
submits that PFI has been banned vide a Gazette
Notification dated 28.09.2022 issued by the
Government of India for a period of five years. On
the date when the raid was conducted i.e.
11.07.2022 and on the date of the Appellant’s arrest
i.e. 12.07.2022, PFI was legally constituted
organisation. Till date, this organisation has not
been declared a terrorist organisation. He asserted
that the chargesheet as has been filed by the
prosecution would not indicate any active role
played by the Appellant except that he had
participated in some demonstrations and protests
against the policies of the State or rather in the
backdrop of remarks made by one Nupur Sharma
against Prophet Mohammad.
9. Another allegation is with regard to having
th th
organized a meeting on 6 and 7 of July 2022 in
the rented first floor premises of Ahmad Palace. The
statements of the witnesses also according to the
allegations do not indicate that the Appellant had
actively participated in any discussions or had
instigated any of the persons present there to
Crl. Appeal No. of 2024 @ SLP(Crl)No.9209 of 2024 Page 5 of 27
commit any of the offence which would fall within
the purview of the offences mentioned in the
chargesheet.
10. The learned Senior Counsel has further asserted
that the co-accused of the Appellant (Jalaluddin
Khan) whose application was also considered for
grant of bail by the High Court along with that of
the Appellant, had been granted bail by this Court
1
in Criminal Appeal No. 3173 of 2024 . His role is
similar to that of the Appellant except that he was
said to be the person who was the owner of the
building and had rented the accommodation to the
Appellant. As regards his participation in the
th th
meeting on 6 and 7 July 2022 is concerned, he is
in a same position with the co-accused already
granted bail by this Court. Mere participation in the
meeting would not be enough. The other co-accused
against whom similar allegations of being a member
of the PFI and participating in protests where
alleged communal slogans were raised have been
enlarged on bail by the High Court. Even the
1
2024 SCC OnLine SC 1945/ Criminal Appeal No. 3173 of 2024 decided
on 13.08.2024.
Crl. Appeal No. of 2024 @ SLP(Crl)No.9209 of 2024 Page 6 of 27
testimony of the protected witnesses does not
implicate the Appellant in the alleged crime as per
the chargesheet.
11. Learned Senior Counsel has also drawn attention of
this Court to the statement made by prosecution
witness Saiyed Abu Monawwar to submit that as
per this witness, there are commercial
establishments such as shops and pathology labs
on the ground floor of the building where the raid
was conducted. CCTV cameras would not have been
permitted to be installed in the said premises or on
the first floor also had some objectionable activities
being carried out by the PFI. This also reflects that it
does not stand to logic. It is not therefore logical and
does not make sense where such objectionable
activities were to be carried out as has been alleged
the same would be in such an area as has been
described by the prosecution.
12. Another submission which has been put forth is
that there are 354 witnesses cited by the
prosecution and the Appellant is in custody since
12.07.2022 for more than two years and four
Crl. Appeal No. of 2024 @ SLP(Crl)No.9209 of 2024 Page 7 of 27
months with the trial not likely to conclude in the
near future. The Appellant deserves to be released
on bail as this would amount to violation of Article
21 of the Constitution of India.
13. On the other hand, the learned Additional Solicitor
General for the Respondent has asserted that
during the raid conducted by the Bihar Police, not
only the incriminating material/documents were
recovered from the premises in question, but other
electronic items have also been recovered which
clearly establishes that the Appellant was an active
member of the PFI and had not only participated in
the protests but has actively organized the same.
She contends that training and meeting was
conducted in the rented premises of the Appellant in
furtherance and establishment of the Islamic rule in
India. In these meetings, the participants who were
from different States joined and directions were
given in the said meeting to kill and attack those
who make derogatory statements about Prophet
Mohammad and Islam.
Crl. Appeal No. of 2024 @ SLP(Crl)No.9209 of 2024 Page 8 of 27
14. It is further submitted that the Appellant had been
working to create a secret group of ex-Student
Islamic Movement of India (hereinafter referred to as
the “SIMI”) members, which is the banned
organisation, in order to take revenge against the
persons who made or make derogatory statements
against Islam. The Appellant and other co-accused
had participated in protest and videos were
recovered where communal sloganeering was
recorded and circulated which not only was
intended to create disturbance but religious
disharmony and discord within the society. The
CDR records established that the Appellant was in
touch with other co-accused and had conspired to
expand the unlawful ideology of the PFI. About the
participation of the Appellant and the other co-
accused named in the First Information Report, she
th th
states that CCTV footage of 6 and 7 July installed
at the Ahmad Palace depicts the same which
establishes the involvement of the Appellant in
conspiracy for carrying out unlawful activities with
an intention to disturb the security, integrity and
sovereignty of the country and promote feeling of
enmity and hatred between different groups. The
Crl. Appeal No. of 2024 @ SLP(Crl)No.9209 of 2024 Page 9 of 27
Courts below and especially the Special Judge, NIA
Patna has taken cognizance of the chargesheet on
28.04.2023.
15. Learned Additional Solicitor General, however could
not dispute the stage of the trial as no charges have
been framed. Emphasis has been laid by the
Learned Additional Solicitor General upon the
statements of the protected witnesses, with special
emphasis upon that of Z, Y & X. Reliance has also
been placed upon the statement of witness Murtuj
Ali. Reference has also been made to the
chargesheet paragraph 15.2 with regard to the
protest march and sloganeering on 09.06.2022 in
the area of Police Station, Pirbahor, Patna.
Paragraph 15.5 relating to electronic evidence where
the hard disk/DVR of the CCTV installed in Ahmad
Palace were recovered showing the presence of the
th th
Appellant in meeting held on 6 and 7 of July
2022. Paragraph 17.2 again refers to the details
with regard to the training conducted in the rented
premises as also the Appellant’s connection with the
SIMI. Paragraphs 17.3 and 17.4 are with regard to
the document titled ‘India 2047 towards rule of
Crl. Appeal No. of 2024 @ SLP(Crl)No.9209 of 2024 Page 10 of 27
Islam in India, internal document, not for
circulation’, the contents thereof have been
mentioned therein. Paragraph 17.13 highlights the
call data records of the mobile numbers used by the
accused persons revealing their location and
th
connection with each other in the meeting dated 6
th
and 7 of July 2022. Paragraphs 17.15 and 17.16 -
statement of protected witness ‘Z’. Paragraph 17.33
relates to the collection of funds for Zakat and
donations by the Appellant and others on directions
of the senior members of the PFI. Paragraph 17.34
relates to the statement of the protected witness ‘Y’
with reference to these allegations in the
chargesheet.
16. The learned Additional Solicitor General has thus
asserted that there are serious allegations against
the Appellant and therefore the Orders as has been
passed by the Courts below are fully justified and
the prayer made in the present Appeal deserves to
be rejected.
17. We have considered the submissions made by the
Counsel for the parties and with their able
Crl. Appeal No. of 2024 @ SLP(Crl)No.9209 of 2024 Page 11 of 27
assistance have gone through the chargesheet.
Before we proceed in the matter, the principles
which have to be kept in mind while considering the
prayer for grant of bail under Section 43-D (5) of
UAPA, 1967 have to be looked into.
18. This Court had an occasion to deal with the case of
an accused charged under Chapters IV and VI of the
UAPA, 1967, who sought bail during the pendency
of the trial in the case of National Investigation
2
Agency v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali . In that
case, this Court had gone to the extent of stating
that the statutory bar on grant of bail could not be
an impediment if the court on appreciation of
totality of evidence is satisfied that the accusations
are prima facie not true. The court is required to
consider and examine not only the FIR but the case
diary and chargesheet and to examine them on
broad probabilities regarding involvement of the
accused in the crime to determine whether the
accusations are prima facie true as compared to
holding the accused not guilty, which would entitle
2
(2019) 5 SCC 1
Crl. Appeal No. of 2024 @ SLP(Crl)No.9209 of 2024 Page 12 of 27
the provisions of Section 43-D(5) of UAPA, 1967,
being not an impediment in grant of bail.
The Court further concluded that if on perusal of
the case diary and chargesheet, an opinion is
formed that there are no reasonable grounds for
believing that the accusations against such person
are prima facie true, the accused can be released on
bail. It may be added here that while forming an
opinion as to whether there are reasonable grounds
for believing that the accusation against the accused
is prima facie true or otherwise the said documents
have to be accepted as it is. The Court is merely
expected to record a finding on the basis of broad
probabilities regarding the involvement of the
accused in the commission of the stated offence or
otherwise.
19. Long incarceration and unlikely likelihood of trial
being completed in near future has also been taken
as a ground for exercising its constitutional role by
the Constitutional Courts to grant bail on violation
of Article 21 of the Constitution of India which
guarantees trial to be concluded within a reasonable
Crl. Appeal No. of 2024 @ SLP(Crl)No.9209 of 2024 Page 13 of 27
time. Gross delay in conclusion of the trial would
justify such invocation leading to a conclusion of
violation of Part III the Constitution of India, which
may be taken as a ground to release an undertrial
on bail. A reference in this regard may be made to
the judgment of this Court in Union of India v . K.A.
3
Najeeb . It requires mention that in that case this
Court considered the factum that there were 276
witnesses left to be examined which would lead to a
prolong trial resulting in no possibility of the trial
coming to an end at an early date resulting in
suffering of incarceration for a significant period of
time by an accused, making it an obligation on the
Court on such consideration to enlarge such an
accused on bail. It may be mentioned here that the
Court was cautious enough to mention that the
restrictions under the statute as in this case,
Section 43-D (5) of UAPA, 1967 as well as the
powers exercisable under the Constitutional
jurisdiction by the Court need to be harmonized.
20. At the initial stage, the legislative policy needs to be
appreciated and followed by the Courts. Keeping the
3
(2021) 3 SCC 713
Crl. Appeal No. of 2024 @ SLP(Crl)No.9209 of 2024 Page 14 of 27
statutory provisions in mind but with the passage of
time the effect of that statutory provision would in
fact have to be diluted giving way to the mandate of
Part III of the Constitution where the accused as of
now is not a convict and is facing the charges.
Constitutional right of speedy trial in such
circumstances will have precedence over the
bar/strict provisions of the statute and cannot be
made the sole reason for denial of bail. Therefore,
the period of incarceration of an accused could also
be a relevant factor to be considered by the
constitutional courts not to be merely governed by
the statutory provisions.
21. Reference can also be made to the judgments of this
4
Court in Thwaha Fasal v. Union of India as also
Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra
5
and Anr . where again, the Court was dealing with
the provisions of UAPA, 1967 and had reiterated the
abovesaid principles. Giving precedence to the
protection of Fundamental Rights and emphasising
upon their primacy over the statutory provisions in
4
(2022) 14 SCC 766
5
2024 SCC OnLine SC 1693
Crl. Appeal No. of 2024 @ SLP(Crl)No.9209 of 2024 Page 15 of 27
case of delayed trial. In the above judgments, this
Court had even gone to the extent of asserting that
the seriousness of the crime for which the accused
is facing the trial would not be material as an
accused is presumed to be innocent until proven
guilty.
22. With these basic principles in mind, we now proceed
to consider the position with regard to the present
Appeal. The allegations against the Appellant as has
been stated above primarily are that he is an active
member of the PFI, which according to the
prosecution is an organisation committed to
bringing about Islamic rule in India. For the said
purpose, disharmony and internal conflicts are
sought to be brought about within the society so
that there is discontentment and the peace and
calm within the society gets disturbed. Resort to
violence and violent means has also been alleged to
be preached and practiced by the said organisation
in which the Appellant had been taking an active
role. He is the person who participated in the
protest held on 09.06.2022 against the remarks
made by Nupur Sharma against Prophet
Crl. Appeal No. of 2024 @ SLP(Crl)No.9209 of 2024 Page 16 of 27
Mohammad and Islam. In the said protest, not only
was he a participant but an organizer and had been
encouraging the protesters to use provocative
slogans. Apart from this, there are allegations that
he had taken first floor of Ahmad Palace on rent
where activities of PFI were being carried out.
Specific reference has been made to the
th
meeting/training program of the PFI held on 29
th th
May 2022 and 6 and 7 July 2022.
23. In these meetings, not only was there participation
on the part of the Appellant but 30-40 other
members of the PFI. The allegation against the
Appellant is that he had organized the said
meetings, used his own premises and had also
stored and kept documents and material relatable to
PFI which were objectionable. In the said meetings,
discussions to fulfil the agenda of India 2047 rule of
Islam in India was planned and steps to be taken for
giving it effect were being worked upon. The
members present were called upon to target and
neutralize persons who make remarks against
Prophet Mohammad and Islam.
Crl. Appeal No. of 2024 @ SLP(Crl)No.9209 of 2024 Page 17 of 27
24. Reliance has been placed with regard to the
statements of the protected witnesses especially X, Y
and Z to substantiate the said allegations as also
the recovered documents from the premises. The
factual aspect with regard to the number of
witnesses, the period of incarceration and that there
are 40 accused in the case has not been disputed.
Reference at this stage is to be made to the
judgment of this Court in Jalaluddin Khan v.
6
Union of India which related to the co-accused of
the Appellant whose appeal for grant of bail under
the UAPA, 1967 along with that of the present
Appellant was rejected by a common impugned
judgment of the High Court. The only distinction
between the case of the present Appellant and Md.
Jalaluddin was that he was the owner of the
premises whereas the Appellant is a tenant thereof.
Participation of the Appellant, as well as co-accused
Md. Jalaluddin along with the other accused in the
th th
meeting of 6 and 7 July 2022 had not been
disputed. The evidence against the Appellant as also
the co-accused Md. Jalaluddin is almost the same.
6
2024 SCC OnLine SC 1945/ Criminal Appeal No. 317 of 2024 decided
on 13.08.2024.
Crl. Appeal No. of 2024 @ SLP(Crl)No.9209 of 2024 Page 18 of 27
25. 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
th
the meeting held on 29 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.
Reference has also been made with regard to the
th
meeting held on 6 and 7th of July 2022 at Ahmad
Palace. In the said meeting, no active role is
attributed to the Appellant except for he being
Crl. Appeal No. of 2024 @ SLP(Crl)No.9209 of 2024 Page 19 of 27
present and that the premises where this meeting
was held was in his possession being a tenant.
Again, 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.
26. This Court in the case dealing with the bail
application of Md. Jalaluddin, the co-accused of the
Appellant and the owner of the premises had an
occasion to deal with the paragraphs of the
chargesheet where reference to the meetings held on
th th th
29 May 2022 and 6 and 7 of July, 2022 were
made. The said paragraphs had been reproduced
hereinunder. On consideration of the allegations
made therein, when seen in the context of the
statement of the protected witness ‘Z’ as has been
supplied to the Court for perusal it was stated in
Paragraph 11 of the said judgment (relevant part)
reads as follows:
“11. xxx xxx xxx xxx
Crl. Appeal No. of 2024 @ SLP(Crl)No.9209 of 2024 Page 20 of 27
Paragraph 17.16 alleges that protected
witness Z stated that in the meeting,
subjects such as the expansion of the
organisation, basic and advanced training
of PFI members and future PFI plans were
discussed, and a direction was given to
trained PFI cadre to eliminate one Nupur
Sharma. In the statement of protected
witness Z, all that is not found. In fact,
protected witness Z stated that during the
meeting, emphasis was given on
strengthening the status of Muslims,
imparting them basic and advanced
training and strengthening the status of
education, politics and administration of
Muslims and Muslim empowerment. Going
by the witness’s version, we find that there
was no discussion about the activities of
th
PFI in the meeting held on 29 May 2022.
We are not reproducing the statement of
the protected witness Z as it has been kept
in a sealed cover. Suffice it to say that
what is reproduced in paragraph 17.16 is
not correct. The material portion of witness
Z’s actual statement has been completely
distorted in paragraph of the charge sheet.
Several things which protected witness Z
did not state have been incorporated in
paragraph 17.16. Unfortunately,
paragraph 17.16 attributes certain
statements to protected witness Z, which
he did not make. NIA owes an explanation
for that. The investigating machinery has
to be fair. But, in this case, paragraph
17.16 indicates to the contrary. ”
27. The Court had further gone to the extent of saying
and rightly so that in the chargesheet there is no
allegation that the Appellant was a member of a
Crl. Appeal No. of 2024 @ SLP(Crl)No.9209 of 2024 Page 21 of 27
terrorist gang or organisation. 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. It was also found that the PFI is
not mentioned as a terrorist organisation in the first
schedule of UAPA, 1967. The chargesheet and the
statement of witness ‘Z’ when seen as it is, it would
not be possible to record prima facie finding that
commission of offence under the UAPA, 1967 would
be attracted as there are no reasonable grounds for
believing that the accusations are prima facie
correct.
28. Now, moving on to the statement of the protected
witness ‘Y’. The testimony of the protected witness
‘Y’ when perused indicates that the Appellant is
alleged to be a person of staunch religious nature
who used to participate in religious processions and
demonstrations against the policies of the
Government. He had been motivating the people of
his locality to join the activities of the PFI. The
meetings held at Ahmad Palace has been
acknowledged by him to be so held where lot of
Crl. Appeal No. of 2024 @ SLP(Crl)No.9209 of 2024 Page 22 of 27
outsiders had come. He is, however, completely
silent with regard to the nature of the activities or
the meetings held therein.
29. 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.
30. 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
Crl. Appeal No. of 2024 @ SLP(Crl)No.9209 of 2024 Page 23 of 27
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.
31. It is thus apparent that the first test as has been
laid down by the various judgments of this Court
referred to above, stands satisfied relating to Section
43-D(5) of 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.
Crl. Appeal No. of 2024 @ SLP(Crl)No.9209 of 2024 Page 24 of 27
32. 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 date 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 of this Court as has been
referred to above, 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. The ratio
as laid down by this Court in Union of India v. K.A.
Najeeb (supra) as also the other judgments in Javed
Ghulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra and
Anr. and Thwaha Fasal v. Union of India
(supra)
(supra) would be applicable to this case and would
squarely apply entitling the Appellant for grant of
bail.
33. The co-accused of the Appellant, Md. Jalaluddin has
on similar grounds been granted the same benefit.
Crl. Appeal No. of 2024 @ SLP(Crl)No.9209 of 2024 Page 25 of 27
In the said case, this Court in paragraph 21 has
held as follows:
“21. Before we part with the Judgment, we
must mention here that the Special Court
and the High Court did not consider the
material in the charge sheet objectively.
Perhaps the focus was more on the
activities of PFI, and therefore, the
appellant’s case could not be properly
appreciated. When a case is made out for
a grant of bail, the Courts should not
have any hesitation in granting bail. The
allegations of the prosecution may be
very serious. But, the duty of the Courts
is to consider the case for grant of bail
in accordance with the law. Even in a
case like the present case where there
are stringent conditions for the grant of
bail in the relevant statutes, the same
rule holds good with only modification
that the bail can be granted if the
conditions in the statute are satisfied.
The rule also means that once a case is
made out for the grant of bail, the Court
cannot decline to grant bail. If the Courts
start denying bail in deserving cases, it will
be a violation of the rights guaranteed
under Article 21 of our Constitution.”
(Emphasis Supplied)
34. In the light of the above, the impugned judgment is
set aside. The Appeal is accordingly allowed with a
direction that the Appellant be enlarged on bail on
Crl. Appeal No. of 2024 @ SLP(Crl)No.9209 of 2024 Page 26 of 27
the appropriate terms and conditions to be fixed by
the Special Court.
35. The Appellant for this purpose shall be produced
before the Special Court within a maximum period
of 07 days from today. The Special Court shall
enlarge the Appellant on bail until the conclusion of
the trial on appropriate terms and conditions after
hearing the Counsel for the Respondent.
36. It is clarified here that the observations made
hereinabove are tentative in nature, with reference
to the prayer made in the present Appeal confining
it to the case of the Appellant. It shall have no
bearing on the trial or on the case of the co-accused.
37. Pending applications if any stand disposed of.
………………………………. J.
(ABHAY S. OKA)
……………………………………. J.
(AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH)
NEW DELHI;
DECEMBER 17, 2024.
Crl. Appeal No. of 2024 @ SLP(Crl)No.9209 of 2024 Page 27 of 27
ITEM NO.1501 COURT NO.5 SECTION II-A
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Criminal Appeal No.5387/2024
[@ Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 9209/2024]
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 28-11-2023
in CRADB No. 516/2023 passed by the High Court of Judicature at
Patna)
ATHAR PARWEZ Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA Respondent(s)
(IA No. 167621/2024 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T., IA No.
167620/2024 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/
ANNEXURES)
Date : 17-12-2024 This matter was called on for pronouncement of
judgment.
For Appellant(s) Dr. Aditya Sondhi, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Divyesh Pratap Singh, Adv.
Mr. Adil Sharfuddin, Adv.
Mr. Shashank Singh, AOR
Mr. Anubhav Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Maeen Mavaram, Adv.
Ms. Prapti Shrivastava, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, A.S.G.
Ms. Shivika Mehra, Adv.
Ms. Bani Dikshit, Adv.
Ms. Seema Bengani, Adv.
Mr. Parantap Singh, Adv.
Ms. Rajeshwari Shankar, Adv.
Ms. Pooja Kumari, Adv.
Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Augustine George Masih pronounced the
Reportable judgment of the Bench comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice
Abhay S. Oka and His Lordship.
Leave granted.
The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed Reportable
Judgment. The operative portion of the judgment reads thus:
“In the light of the above, the impugned judgment is
1
set aside. The Appeal is accordingly allowed with a
direction that the Appellant be enlarged on bail on
the appropriate terms and conditions to be fixed by
the Special Court.
The Appellant for this purpose shall be produced before
the Special Court within a maximum period of 07 days from
today. The Special Court shall enlarge the Appellant on
bail until the conclusion of the trial on appropriate
terms and conditions after hearing the Counsel for the
Respondent.
It is clarified here that the observations made
hereinabove are tentative in nature, with reference to
the prayer made in the present Appeal confining it to the
case of the Appellant. It shall have no bearing on the
trial or on the case of the co-accused.”
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(KAVITA PAHUJA) (AVGV RAMU)
ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER (NSH)
[THE REPORTABLE SIGNED JUDGMENT IS PLACED ON THE FILE]
2