AAKIF ATEEQUE NACHAN @ AAKIB S/O SHRI ATEEQUE NACHAN vs N.I.A.

[2026:RJ-JP:41947-DB]
Reportable
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
Judgment reserved on: 01.10.2026
Judgment delivered on: 26.10.2026
Judgment (Full) uploaded on:26.10.2026
D.B. Criminal Appeal (Db) No. 266/2024
CNR: RJHC020761782024 | URN: CRLAD / 469U / 2024
Aakif Ateeque Nachan @ Aakib (A-2) S/o Shri Ateeque Nachan,
Aged About 44 Years, R/o 522, Boriwali, Post Padgha, Thana
Padgha, Tehsil Bhwandi, District Thane, Maharashtra (At Present
Confined At Central Jail Jaipur)
---Accused-Appellant
Versus
N.I.A., New Delhi through Special P.P.
----Respondent
Connected With
D.B. Criminal Appeal (Db) No. 267/2024
CNR: RJHC020746602024 | URN: CRLAD / 471U / 2024
Mazhar Khan @ Mazhar @ Muzhar (A-8) S/o Israiel Khan, Aged
About 35 Years, R/o House No 89 Samta Nagar Anand Colony
Police Station Road, Ratlam Madhya Pradesh (At Present Central
Jail Jaipur Rajasthan)
----Accused Applicant/Appellant
Versus
The National Investigation Agency (NIA), New Delhi Through
Public Prosecutor
----Respondent
D.B. Criminal Appeal (Db) No. 301/2024
CNR: RJHC020791302024 | URN: CRLAD / 528U / 2024
Imran Khan S/o Mohammad Sharif Khan, Aged About 41 Years,
R/o 230 Mohan Nagar, Industrial Area Ratlam, Madhya Pradesh,
At Present Confined In High Security Jail Ajmer Rajasthan
----Appellant
Versus
National Investigation Agency, Through The Public Prosecutor
(Uploaded on 26/10/2026 at 08:12:41 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/10/2026 at 03:02:26 PM)

(2 of 37)
[2026:RJ-JP:41947-DB] [CRLAD-266/2024]
----Respondent
D.B. Criminal Appeal (Db) No. 380/2024
CNR: RJHC020906922024 | URN: CRLAD / 643U / 2024
1. Aamin Khan @ Ameen Pawda @ Aamin Khan @ Seth S/o
Late Aslam Khan, Aged About 35 Years, R/o House No. 202
Sherani Pura PS Station Road, Ratlam Madhya Pradesh (At
Present Confined At Central Jail Jaipur)
2. Mohammed Ameen Patel @ Abid, Aged about 34 years S/o
Samad Patel, R/o 146, Sherani Pura, PS Station Road,
Ratlam Madhya Pradesh (At Present Confined At Central Jail
Jaipur)
3. Saifulla @ Saifu Khan, Aged about 49 years old, S/o Ramjani
Ali, R/o Sherani Pura Officer Colony, Road, PS Station Road,
Ratlam Madhya Pradesh (At Present Confined At Central Jail
Jaipur)
4. Altamash Khan @ Altamash @ Althamash @ Altu S/o Mohd.
Bashir Khan, Aged About 28 Years, R/o House No. 18,
Sherani Pura, Officer Colony Road, PS Do Batti Ratlam
Madhya Pradesh (At Present Confined At Central Jail Ajmer)
5. Zubair Khan @ Juber @ Zubair @ Zuber @ Zafu S/o Fakir
Mohammad Pathan, Aged About 44 Years old, R/o Gali No.
02, Anand Colony, PS Station Road, Ratlam, Madhya Pradesh
(At Present Confined At Central Jail Jaipur)
6. Mohammad Yunus Saki @ Mohd Yunus @ Yunus Khan @
Yunus S/o Mohammed Yunus Saki, Aged About 28 Years old,
R/o House No. 60 Kunjado Ka Was, PS Manak Chowk,
Ratlam Madhya Pradesh (At Present Confined At Central Jail
Jaipur)
7. Imran @ Imran Khan @ Imran Kunjda S/o Mohammed
Yunus, Aged About 24 Years, R/o House No. 51, Kunjdo Ka
Was, PS Manak Chowk, Ratlam Madhya Pradesh (At Present
Confined At Central Jail Jaipur)
----Appellants
Versus
State, Through N.I.A. New Delhi Through Public Prosecutor
----Respondent
(Uploaded on 26/10/2026 at 08:12:41 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/10/2026 at 03:02:26 PM)

(3 of 37)
[2026:RJ-JP:41947-DB] [CRLAD-266/2024]
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Syed Saadat Ali, Adv. with
Ms. Uzma Ilyas, Adv., Ms. Aafreen
Rizvi, Adv., Mr. Nadeem Qadeer, Adv.,
Mr. Sumit Kumar, Adv.
Mr. R.B. Sharma (Ganthola), Adv.
Ms. Deeksha Dwivedi, Adv. (through
VC) with Mr. Tekchand Swami, Adv.
Mr. Lakshya Sharma, Adv. with
Mr. Yash S. Vijay, Adv. &
Mr. Shikhar Aggarwal, Adv. (through
VC)
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sneh Deep Khyaliya, Special PP
NIA assisted by Mr. Siddharth
Sharma, Adv. & Mr. Himanshu
Choudhary, Adv.
Division Bench
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJAY K. AGRAWAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN
C.A.V. Judgment
For sake of exposition, this judgment is divided in following
parts:-
S.No. Particulars Page Nos.
1. Prefatory facts and nature of
reliefs sought in the present batch
of appeals
4-8
2. Submissions made by learned
counsel appearing on behalf of
appellants
8-17
3. Submissions made by learned
counsel appearing on behalf of
respondents/non-appellants
17-20
4. Discussion, analysis and findings 20
5. Scope of adjudication 20-23
6. Adjudication of prayers made, as
per the merits/de-merits of the
case
23-26
7. The individual roles attributed to
the appellants
26-31
8. The statutory framework and
gravity of alleged offence
31-33
9. Whether the impugned order
warrants interference
34-36
10. Conclusion 36
(Uploaded on 26/10/2026 at 08:12:41 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/10/2026 at 03:02:26 PM)

(4 of 37)
[2026:RJ-JP:41947-DB] [CRLAD-266/2024]
PREFATORY FACTS AND NATURE OF RELIEFS SOUGHT IN
THE PRESENT BATCH OF APPEALS :
1. The present batch of appeals arises out of proceedings
emanating from the same underlying criminal investigation and
involves overlapping questions of fact and law concerning the
allegations levelled by the prosecution, the material collected
during investigation, and the legality of the order passed by the
learned Trial Court at the stage of consideration of discharge and
framing of charges. Having regard to the commonality of the
factual background, the interlaced and interwoven nature of the
controversy, and the substantial overlap in the issues requiring
adjudication, the matters are being considered and adjudicated
upon by way of the present common judgment, so as to ensure
consistency in the adjudication of the issues arising therefrom and
to obviate the possibility of conflicting determinations.
2. The genesis of the prosecution case lies in an incident dated
30.03.2022, when a police naka party of Police Station Nimbahera,
District Chittorgarh, Rajasthan, intercepted a Baleno car bearing
registration No. MP43CA7091 at Wonder Chouraha, Nimbahera.
Upon search of the vehicle, explosive material measuring upto 3
kgs., together with certain articles including watches, batteries,
wires and bulbs, was allegedly recovered and seized. In
connection therewith, FIR No. 150/2022 came to be registered at
Police Station Nimbahera Sadar, District Chittorgarh, for offences
of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as
(Uploaded on 26/10/2026 at 08:12:41 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/10/2026 at 03:02:26 PM)

(5 of 37)
[2026:RJ-JP:41947-DB] [CRLAD-266/2024]
“the Explosive Substance Act”), and of the Unlawful Activities
(Prevention) Act, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as “the UAPA”).
3. The investigation was initially undertaken by the local police
and was thereafter carried out by the Anti-Terrorist Squad
(hereinafter referred to as “ATS”), Udaipur. Subsequently,
pursuant to the order dated 20.04.2022 issued by the Ministry of
Home Affairs, Government of India, the investigation was
entrusted to the National Investigation Agency (hereinafter
referred to as “NIA”), which re-registered the case as RC-
18/2022/NIA/DLI and proceeded with further investigation. Upon
completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet came to be filed
against eleven accused persons, of whom eight were stated to
have been arrested, while three were shown as absconding.
4. The prosecution case, in substance, alleges the existence of
a group named ‘SUFA’, purportedly led by accused-Imran Khan,
and attributes to its members a conspiracy involving the
procurement of arms, ammunition and explosive substances for
the commission of terrorist acts and other alleged unlawful
activities. The allegations against the accused persons, including
the appellants/petitioners in the present proceedings, arise in the
context of their alleged association with the said group and the
alleged preparatory activities attributed to its members. The
precise role ascribed to each accused, however, is required to be
examined with reference to the allegations and material
specifically relied upon by the prosecution against the concerned
individual.
(Uploaded on 26/10/2026 at 08:12:41 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/10/2026 at 03:02:26 PM)

(6 of 37)
[2026:RJ-JP:41947-DB] [CRLAD-266/2024]
5. Insofar as the appellant, Mazhar Khan, is concerned, the
prosecution, inter alia , alleges that he was associated with the
aforesaid group, attended meetings allegedly convened at the
poultry farm of the principal accused, and was involved in
discussions concerning the alleged conspiracy to place an
improvised explosive device (hereinafter referred to as “IED”) or
explosive material near Jaipur. The prosecution has further relied
upon alleged travel-related information, common mobile-phone
locations of certain accused persons on specified dates, and
internet protocol detail records (hereinafter referred to as
“IPDRs”) pertaining to the use of various mobile applications. The
appellant disputes the incriminating inference sought to be drawn
from such material and contends that the same does not establish
his participation in the alleged conspiracy or the commission of the
offences with which he has been charged.
6. The appellant's principal grievance is that the material relied
upon by the prosecution does not disclose legally sustainable
grounds for proceeding against him for the offences in question. It
is contended that the alleged travel records have not been
substantiated by the production of the relevant tickets or material
establishing actual travel; that the alleged common mobile-phone
locations do not, by themselves, establish participation in any
unlawful meeting or criminal conspiracy; and that the prosecution
has failed to establish the precise location of the alleged
farmhouse through scientifically ascertainable geographical
coordinates. The appellant further asserts that no incriminating
material connecting him with the alleged commission of the
(Uploaded on 26/10/2026 at 08:12:41 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/10/2026 at 03:02:26 PM)

(7 of 37)
[2026:RJ-JP:41947-DB] [CRLAD-266/2024]
offences was recovered from the mobile phones stated to have
been seized from him. These assertions constitute the appellant's
case and are noticed herein only to delineate the controversy
arising for consideration.
7. The appellant had moved an application under Section 227 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as
“CrPC”), seeking discharge from the offences alleged against him.
Upon consideration of the prosecution case and the application so
preferred, the learned Trial Court, vide order dated 31.07.2024,
partially discharged the appellants. The appellant assails the said
order to the extent that the learned Trial Court declined to
discharge him from the aforesaid offences and proceeded to frame
charges notwithstanding, according to him, the absence of
sufficient incriminating material warranting such a course.
Therefore, the nature of the relief sought in the present
proceedings is, to the extent arising from the respective
pleadings, directed against the impugned judicial orders and the
continuation of criminal proceedings pursuant thereto.
8. In view of the foregoing, the present batch of matters is
being taken up for common adjudication, the controversies arising
therein being interlaced and interwoven by reason of their
common investigative origin, overlapping factual circumstances
and connected questions requiring judicial consideration. The
matters shall accordingly be examined in the light of their
respective pleadings, the material forming part of the record, the
nature of the allegations against each accused, and the applicable
statutory provisions. The reference to common facts herein shall
(Uploaded on 26/10/2026 at 08:12:41 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/10/2026 at 03:02:26 PM)

(8 of 37)
[2026:RJ-JP:41947-DB] [CRLAD-266/2024]
not, however, dispense with the necessity of independently
assessing the role attributed to each accused and the legal
sufficiency of the material relied upon against such accused, in
accordance with law.
SUBMISSIONS MADE BY LEARNED COUNSEL APPEARING
ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT S :
9. The appellants assail the impugned orders dated 31.07.2024,
whereby the learned Trial Court, while discharging certain accused
persons from specific offences, proceeded to frame charges under
the remaining provisions of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908,
the UAPA and the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Their principal
grievance is that the material relied upon by the prosecution does
not sufficiently establish their individual involvement in the alleged
offences. It is contended that the alleged recovery of explosive
material from the vehicle, the absence of certain appellants at the
time of its interception, the lack of recovery during searches
conducted at the premises of certain accused persons, and the
material relied upon to establish the alleged conspiracy have not
been appropriately appreciated. The appellants further submit that
the allegations concerning their association with the group styled
as ‘SUFA’, participation in meetings and alleged training in the
preparation of IEDs must be assessed individually in the light of
the evidence attributed to each of them.
10. Accordingly, the appellants seek setting aside of the
impugned orders to the extent that charges have been framed
against them, contending that the material on record does not
(Uploaded on 26/10/2026 at 08:12:41 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/10/2026 at 03:02:26 PM)

(9 of 37)
[2026:RJ-JP:41947-DB] [CRLAD-266/2024]
warrant continuation of the proceedings for the offences in
question.
In D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 266/2024
11. It was submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the
appellant that the appellant-Aakif Atteq Nahar, arrayed as Accused
No. 2, assails the impugned order dated 31.07.2024, whereby
charges have been framed against him for offences under Sections
4(a)(i) and 6 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908; Sections
16(1)(b), 18 and 20 of the UAPA; and Sections 120-B, 121-A and
122 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The appellant stands
discharged from the offence under Section 5 of the Explosive
Substances Act, 1908, and Sections 18A and 18B of the UAPA.
12. It was contended that the appellant was neither
apprehended from the vehicle in which the explosive material was
allegedly recovered nor was he present at the time of the
interception of the said vehicle. The prosecution case concerning
the recovery of explosive material and batteries from the vehicle
must, therefore, be distinguished from the allegations
subsequently levelled against the appellant. It was further
submitted that the appellant’s alleged involvement cannot be
inferred merely from the recovery effected in circumstances in
which he was not present. The appellant was arrested on
15.05.2022, approximately two months after the vehicle had been
intercepted; this circumstance assumes significance in the context
of the prosecution's attempt to connect the appellant with the
explosive material allegedly recovered from the vehicle. Further, it
was contended that the prosecution has not demonstrated a
(Uploaded on 26/10/2026 at 08:12:41 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/10/2026 at 03:02:26 PM)

(10 of 37)
[2026:RJ-JP:41947-DB] [CRLAD-266/2024]
sufficient evidentiary connection between the said recovery and
his alleged participation in the offences.
13. Pursuant to the search conducted at the appellant's house on
24.05.2022, no illegal material was recovered, the absence of any
such recovery is specifically relied upon by the appellant as a
circumstance which, according to him, undermines the allegation
of his involvement in the alleged unlawful activities. Learned
counsel submitted that the search of the appellant’s premises did
not yield any material of the nature alleged by the prosecution to
connect him directly with the explosive substances recovered from
the vehicle.
14. Further, one of the allegations attributed to the appellant is
that he attended a meeting for learning the preparation of IEDs;
however, the same is disputed by the appellant as incriminating
inference sought to be drawn from this allegation and it was
contended that the prosecution must establish the evidentiary
basis for attributing to him participation in the alleged preparation
of IEDs and the offences subsequently charged against him. The
prosecution has also relied upon training material allegedly
recorded in a phone belonging to the appellant and subsequently
transferred to a pen drive belonging to Accused No. 3, Ameen
Pawada. However, mere reference to such recording and transfer
does not, without examination of the material and its connection
with the appellant, establish his involvement in the alleged
offences. The alleged recording, its subsequent transfer and the
ownership of the device on which it was stored are circumstances
(Uploaded on 26/10/2026 at 08:12:41 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/10/2026 at 03:02:26 PM)

(11 of 37)
[2026:RJ-JP:41947-DB] [CRLAD-266/2024]
which, require careful scrutiny before an incriminating inference
can be drawn against him.
15. Thus, in summation, it can be noted that the appellant's
principal contention was that there was no direct recovery of
explosive material or other illegal material from his person or
premises, that he was not apprehended from the vehicle in
question, and that no sufficient evidence has been demonstrated
to connect him with the explosive material allegedly recovered
therefrom. The appellant also relies upon the absence of direct
recovery and the alleged deficiency in the connecting material as
grounds for challenging the framing of charges. In support of the
submissions made insofar, and to strengthen the arguments
contended, learned counsel had placed reliance upon a catena of
judgments, inter alia, Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal
1 2
& Anr. , State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh , Sajjan Kumar v.
3 4
CBI , Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander , Dipakbhai
5
Jagdishchandra Patel v. State of Gujarat , National
6
Investigation Agency v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali ,
7
Thwaha Fasal v. Union of India , Vernon v. State of
8 9
Maharashtra , Kashmira Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh .
16. In these circumstances, the appellant sought setting aside of
the impugned order dated 31.07.2024 to the extent that charges
1 1979 (3) SCC 4
2 1977 (4) SCC 39
3 2010 (9) SCC 368
4 2012 (9) SCC 460
5 2019 (16) SCC 547
6 2019 (5) SCC 1
7 2021 INSC 688
8 2023 INSC 655
9 AIR 1952 SC 159
(Uploaded on 26/10/2026 at 08:12:41 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/10/2026 at 03:02:26 PM)

(12 of 37)
[2026:RJ-JP:41947-DB] [CRLAD-266/2024]
have been framed against him and prays for discharge from the
offences in respect of which his application was rejected.
In D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 261/2024
17. The appellant, Mazhar Khan, challenged the impugned order
dated 31.07.2024, whereby charges have been framed against
him under Sections 4(a)(i) and 6 of the Explosive Substances Act,
1908; Sections 16(1)(b), 18 and 20 of the UAPA; and Sections
120-B, 121-A and 122 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The
appellant has been discharged from the offences under Sections 5
of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, and Sections 18A and 18B
of the UAPA. It was submitted that the prosecution case
concerning the recovery of explosive substances rests, inter alia,
upon the interception of a vehicle in which two plastic bags, each
stated to contain approximately three kilograms of explosive
material, were allegedly found, together with three watches, three
sets of batteries, three bundles of wires and six small bulbs. The
FIR was initially registered at Police Station Chittorgarh as FIR No.
150/2022 and was thereafter re-registered by the National
Investigation Agency as RC-18/2022/NIA/DLI. It was submitted
that the factum of registration of the case and the recovery
alleged therein must be distinguished from the question whether
the material relied upon establishes his individual involvement in
the offences charged.
18. The prosecution has relied upon alleged air tickets found in a
mobile phone to suggest an association between the appellant and
Imran Khan. However, the appellant disputes the evidentiary
significance attributed to the said material and specifically
(Uploaded on 26/10/2026 at 08:12:41 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/10/2026 at 03:02:26 PM)

(13 of 37)
[2026:RJ-JP:41947-DB] [CRLAD-266/2024]
contends that the air tickets were not exhibited by the
prosecution. It was stoutly contended that the alleged tickets
cannot be treated as conclusive proof of the appellant’s
participation in the alleged conspiracy without the material relied
upon being properly established and connected with the
allegations against him. Further, reliance was placed upon the
discrepancy or deficiency concerning the locations reflected in the
prosecution material, including the reference to Ratlam in the case
notes. It was submitted that the location material must be
assessed in its proper context and that no incriminating conclusion
ought to be drawn merely from a location reference without
examining its evidentiary connection with the alleged meetings or
unlawful activities.
19. Further, learned counsel argued that the appellant's
challenge is also founded upon the fact that no sufficient evidence
has been produced to establish the allegations levelled against
him. The material relied upon by the prosecution, including the
alleged air tickets and location information, must be assessed in
its entirety and in relation to the specific role attributed to the
appellant. The appellant accordingly submitted that the impugned
order warrants interference insofar as it permits the prosecution to
proceed against him for the aforesaid offences.
In D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 301/2024
20. It was submitted that the appellant-Imran Khan, challenged
the impugned order dated 31.07.2024, whereby charges have
been framed against him for offences under Sections 16, 18, 18A,
18B and 20 of the UAPA; Sections 120-B and 121 of the Indian
(Uploaded on 26/10/2026 at 08:12:41 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/10/2026 at 03:02:26 PM)

(14 of 37)
[2026:RJ-JP:41947-DB] [CRLAD-266/2024]
Penal Code, 1860; and Sections 4 and 5 of the Explosive
Substances Act, 1908. It was averred that the appellant was
arrested from his house in Rajasthan on 31.03.2022, and that
Atmash Khan, Zubair and Saifulla were arrested from the car at
approximately 7:40 p.m. on the alleged date of incidence. The
appellant had been called for interrogation on 01.03.2022. These
circumstances form part of the factual background against which
the allegations and the material relied upon by the prosecution
against the appellant are required to be examined.
21. That the prosecution has alleged the existence of a group
styled as ‘SUFA’ and has attributed to the appellant the role of
forming a group inclined towards ISIS; however, the appellant
challenges the allegations and the conclusions sought to be drawn
therefrom and submitted that the accusations must be examined
in the light of the material actually available on record. A material
ground urged on behalf of the appellant concerns the alleged
destruction or demolition of the poultry farm and the house before
the recovery sought to be relied upon by the prosecution. In this
regard, it was submitted that the condition of the premises and
the fact that the same had allegedly been destroyed or
demolished before the recovery are relevant circumstances while
assessing the reliability and evidentiary significance of the alleged
recovery. Nevertheless, the appellants herein were also subjected
to custodial torture.
22. It was further contended that the evidence relied upon
against the appellant is weak and insufficient to sustain the
charges framed by the learned Trial Court. According to the
(Uploaded on 26/10/2026 at 08:12:41 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/10/2026 at 03:02:26 PM)

(15 of 37)
[2026:RJ-JP:41947-DB] [CRLAD-266/2024]
appellant, the allegations concerning the group, the alleged
association with ISIS and the alleged unlawful activities must be
assessed on the basis of the material connecting him individually
with the offences alleged. Thus, it was argued that the impugned
order dated 31.07.2024 deserves to be set aside insofar as it
directs the framing of charges against him. He seeks discharge
from the offences referred to in the impugned order, in accordance
with law.
In D.B. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 380/2024
23. The appellants herein challenge the impugned order dated
31.07.2024, whereby charges have been framed under Sections
16, 18 and 20 of the UAPA; Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Explosive
Substances Act, 1908; Section 25 of the Arms Act; and Sections
120-B, 121-A and 122 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. A principal
ground urged in the appeal concerns the alleged recovery from
the car and the circumstances surrounding the arrest of the
appellant. The appellant contended that no independent witnesses
were present at the time of arrest. Thus, the mandatory
provisions of the governing scheme were not followed, whilst
conducting the arrest of the accused.
24. It was further argued by the learned counsel that the
evidentiary basis of the alleged recovery, pointing out that there
was an inordinate delay in recovering the pickaxe (kudal) from the
car. It was submitted that the delay in effecting the said recovery
is a relevant circumstance which must be considered while
assessing the reliability and significance of the material relied
(Uploaded on 26/10/2026 at 08:12:41 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/10/2026 at 03:02:26 PM)

(16 of 37)
[2026:RJ-JP:41947-DB] [CRLAD-266/2024]
upon by the prosecution, however, the learned Trial Court has
failed to do so.
25. It was further argued that the absence any chemical material
in the car, as recorded in the grounds of challenge, bears upon the
prosecution's case concerning the alleged recovery and the
connection sought to be established between the appellant and
the offences charged. Further, the appellant disputed the reliance
placed upon the alleged confessional statement made before the
police. It was specifically contended that such a statement is not
judicially admissible, as the same was made merely to the police
officer. Further, learned counsel submitted that by way of the
present appeal a challenge is also made to the identification of
Accused No. 3 by ‘Patel Sahab’, described as the owner of a bulb
shop, on 07.05.2022. The appellant submitted that the
circumstances and evidentiary basis of the said identification must
be examined in their proper context before any incriminating
inference is drawn from it. Withal, qua the recovery of a gun from
Ameen Patel and the recovery of a pen drive from a demolished
house, it was argued that no reasonable nexus was drawn by the
prosecution, between the alleged recovery and the appellant.
26. The appellant's overall contention was that the prosecution
material, including the alleged recoveries, the circumstances of
arrest, the delay in recovering the pickaxe, the alleged failure to
trace chemicals in the car, the police confessional statement and
the identification referred to above, requires careful scrutiny.
Thus, the impugned order cannot be sustained merely by
reference to the allegations in the charge-sheet without assessing
(Uploaded on 26/10/2026 at 08:12:41 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/10/2026 at 03:02:26 PM)

(17 of 37)
[2026:RJ-JP:41947-DB] [CRLAD-266/2024]
the evidentiary significance of the material relied upon against
him.
SUBMISSIONS MADE BY LEARNED COUNSEL APPEARING
ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS/NON-APPELLANTS :
27. Per contra, in response to the grounds urged on behalf of the
appellants, it was submitted that the prosecution case emanates
from an alleged criminal conspiracy involving an organisation
styled as ‘SUFA’, which was formulated by approximately 70
youths in Ratlam. During the course of the investigation, it
emerged that differences arose between one Azjad and Imran
Khan, consequent whereupon they parted ways. The prosecution
case further alleges that the activities of the said organisation
primarily involved showing ISIS-related videos to the youth,
thereby exposing them to the ideology and activities of the said
organisation. The aforesaid circumstances constitute an integral
part of the background in which the alleged activities of the
accused persons are required to be examined.
28. It was further submitted that the prosecution case is not
confined merely to the alleged existence of the organisation or the
showing of ISIS-related videos to the youth, but further
encompasses the subsequent events concerning the alleged
conspiracy to procure and transport explosive material. It was
submitted that, on 25.03.2022, a meeting was conducted, during
which it was decided to collect improvised explosive devices
(IEDs) and transport the same to Jaipur. It was further decided
that videos of the entire act would be recorded. The prosecution
relies upon the subsequent recovery of the videos from the mobile
(Uploaded on 26/10/2026 at 08:12:41 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/10/2026 at 03:02:26 PM)

(18 of 37)
[2026:RJ-JP:41947-DB] [CRLAD-266/2024]
phone of accused Aakif as a material circumstance in support of
its case concerning the alleged conspiracy and the intended
transportation of the explosive material.
29. The aforesaid circumstances, when considered cumulatively,
are relied upon by the prosecution to demonstrate the alleged
progression from the activities of the organisation to the planning
and execution of the acts forming the subject matter of the
criminal proceedings. The alleged meeting dated 25.03.2022, the
decision to collect IEDs and transport the same to Jaipur, and the
proposed recording of the entire act are material circumstances
which, according to the prosecution, assume significance in
determining the nature and extent of the alleged conspiracy.
Further, it was contended that during the course of investigation,
non-bailable warrants were also issued for securing the arrest of
certain accused persons who were absconding. The issuance of
such warrants forms part of the procedural history of the
investigation and reflects the steps undertaken by the
investigating agency to secure the presence of the accused
persons and bring the investigation to its logical conclusion.
30. It was also apprised to the Court that upon further
investigation, a supplementary charge-sheet came to be
submitted on 28.11.2023. The filing of the supplementary charge-
sheet constitutes a subsequent development in the proceedings
and indicates that the investigation continued beyond the
submission of the earlier charge-sheet. It was further submitted
that the bail applications made by the accused persons had been
dismissed at different stages of the judicial process, including by
(Uploaded on 26/10/2026 at 08:12:41 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/10/2026 at 03:02:26 PM)

(19 of 37)
[2026:RJ-JP:41947-DB] [CRLAD-266/2024]
the High Court vide orders dated 21.01.2023 and 16.08.2023, and
thereafter by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated
18.01.2024. The prosecution thus, relied upon the aforesaid
procedural history as a relevant circumstance in the context of the
successive proceedings undertaken by the accused persons.
31. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, the prosecution
submits that the allegations against the accused persons are
required to be considered in their entirety, having regard to the
alleged formation and activities of SUFA, the differences between
Azjad and Imran Khan resulting in their separation, the alleged
dissemination of ISIS-related videos among the youth, the
meeting conducted on 25.03.2022, the decision to collect IEDs
and transport the same to Jaipur, the proposed recording of the
entire act, and the subsequent recovery of videos from the mobile
phone of accused Aakif. These circumstances, together with the
further investigation culminating in the supplementary charge-
sheet dated 28.11.2023, constitute the factual basis upon which
the prosecution seeks to sustain the proceedings against the
accused persons. The prosecution submitted that the grounds
urged by the appellants ought to be examined in the light of the
entire factual matrix and the material collected during the
investigation, rather than by considering the individual
circumstances in isolation.
32. In support of the contentions made insofar, learned counsel
had placed reliance upon a catena of dictums enunciated in, inter
10
alia , State of M.P. v. S.B. Johari , State of Orissa v.
10 2000 (2) SCC 57
(Uploaded on 26/10/2026 at 08:12:41 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/10/2026 at 03:02:26 PM)

(20 of 37)
[2026:RJ-JP:41947-DB] [CRLAD-266/2024]
11 12
Debandra Nath , Prakash Singh Badal v. State of Punjab
13
& Asim Sheriff v. National Investigation Agency .
DISCUSSION, ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS :
33. The present batch of appeals has been preferred by the
appellants assailing the common order dated 31.07.2024, passed
by the learned Trial Court, whereby their respective applications
seeking discharge from the offences alleged against them came to
be rejected, in whole or in part, and charges were framed under
the relevant provisions of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, the
UAPA and the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Since the appeals
emanate from the same investigation, arise out of substantially
interconnected factual circumstances and involve overlapping
questions concerning the sufficiency of the material collected by
the investigating agency, they are being decided by this common
judgment. Nevertheless, the allegations and the material
attributed to each appellant shall be considered in the context of
the particular role ascribed to him.
SCOPE OF ADJUDICATION :
34. At the outset, it is necessary to delineate the scope of
adjudication in the present appeals. The appellants have
approached this Court at the stage of framing of charges, and the
criminal trial is yet to culminate in a final adjudication of their guilt
or innocence. The Court is, therefore, not called upon to
determine whether the prosecution has conclusively established
the charges, nor is it required to assess whether the evidence,
11 2005 (1) Crimes 1 SC
12 2007 (1) SCC 1
13 2019 (7) SCC
(Uploaded on 26/10/2026 at 08:12:41 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/10/2026 at 03:02:26 PM)

(21 of 37)
[2026:RJ-JP:41947-DB] [CRLAD-266/2024]
upon completion of the trial, would necessarily result in conviction.
The limited inquiry is whether, upon consideration of the
prosecution material and the documents forming part of the
record, the learned Trial Court was justified in finding sufficient
grounds for proceeding against the appellants for the offences
charged.
35. The distinction between the stage of framing of charges and
the stage of final adjudication is well settled. At the former stage,
the Court is required to ascertain whether the material, taken at
its face value and considered in its entirety, discloses the
ingredients of the alleged offences and gives rise to a prima facie
case or grave suspicion against the accused. The standard of proof
beyond reasonable doubt, which governs the determination of
guilt at trial, is not to be imported into the consideration of an
application for discharge. In the ratio encapsulated in State of
14
Bihar v. Ramesh Singh , the Hon’ble Supreme Court explained
that, where the material gives rise to a strong suspicion leading
the Court to presume that the accused may have committed the
offence, the framing of a charge is justified. The Court is not
required, at that stage, to meticulously examine the truth,
veracity and ultimate evidentiary value of every circumstance as
would be necessary while recording a finding of guilt. The
aforesaid principle was reiterated and elaborated in the ratio
enunciated in Sajjan Kumar v. Central Bureau of
15
Investigation , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court delineated
the parameters governing the exercise of jurisdiction under
14 (1977) 4 SCC 39
15 (2010) 9 SCC 368
(Uploaded on 26/10/2026 at 08:12:41 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/10/2026 at 03:02:26 PM)

(22 of 37)
[2026:RJ-JP:41947-DB] [CRLAD-266/2024]
Sections 227 and 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court has time and again emphasised that
interference with an order framing charge is warranted only where
the case falls within the recognised parameters justifying such
intervention. The Courts should be cautious against undertaking a
meticulous examination of the evidence or determining, at the
threshold, whether the prosecution is ultimately likely to secure a
conviction. The relevant inquiry is whether the allegations, read
with the material collected during investigation, prima facie
constitute the offences alleged and whether the continuation of
the proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law.
36. The aforesaid principles assume particular relevance in the
present batch of appeals, wherein the appellants have sought to
challenge the evidentiary sufficiency of the prosecution case by
relying upon individual circumstances, including the absence of
their presence in the vehicle at the time of interception, the
absence of recovery from certain premises, the alleged
deficiencies in the location records, the nature of the electronic
material recovered, and the circumstances surrounding the alleged
meetings and activities of the group styled as ‘SUFA’. While each
of these circumstances may be relevant to the final determination
of the case, their ultimate evidentiary effect cannot be
conclusively determined by isolating them from the remaining
material at the stage of framing of charges.
37. It is equally necessary to bear in mind that the Court
exercising jurisdiction at the stage of discharge is neither a mere
conduit for the prosecution's allegations nor a forum for
(Uploaded on 26/10/2026 at 08:12:41 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/10/2026 at 03:02:26 PM)

(23 of 37)
[2026:RJ-JP:41947-DB] [CRLAD-266/2024]
conducting a premature trial. The record must be examined with
sufficient judicial application of mind to ascertain whether the
essential ingredients of the offences are prima facie disclosed. At
the same time, the Court must refrain from evaluating the
reliability of each witness, undertaking a detailed assessment of
competing inferences, or accepting a defence explanation which
requires evidentiary scrutiny. In the ratio encapsulated in State of
16
Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi , the Hon’ble Supreme Court
clarified the scope of consideration at the stage of discharge and
the limitations on the material which an accused may seek to
introduce at that stage. The Court is principally concerned with the
prosecution record and the material submitted therewith. The
nature of the allegations and their wider implications.
ADJUDICATION OF THE PRAYERS MADE, AS PER THE
MERITS/DEMERITS OF THE CASE :
38. Turning to the factual matrix, the prosecution case is that the
organisation styled as ‘SUFA’ was formulated by approximately 70
youths in Ratlam. It is alleged that differences arose between
Azjad and Imran Khan- present accused, consequent upon which
they parted ways. The prosecution further alleges that one of the
principal activities of the organisation involved showing ISIS-
related videos to the youth. These allegations form part of the
background against which the subsequent events relied upon by
the prosecution are required to be examined. At this stage, the
Court is not required to record a conclusive finding concerning the
ideological character of the organisation or the ultimate purpose of
16 (2005) 1 SCC 568
(Uploaded on 26/10/2026 at 08:12:41 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/10/2026 at 03:02:26 PM)

(24 of 37)
[2026:RJ-JP:41947-DB] [CRLAD-266/2024]
the alleged activities; the relevant question is whether the
material collected during investigation, considered as a whole,
provides a legally sufficient basis for proceeding against the
appellants. The prosecution has further relied upon the alleged
meeting conducted on 25.03.2022, during which it was
purportedly decided to collect improvised explosive devices (IEDs)
and transport the same to Jaipur. It is also alleged that videos of
the entire act were intended to be recorded and that videos
relating to the alleged activity were subsequently recovered from
the mobile phone of accused Aakif. These circumstances constitute
an important part of the prosecution narrative, inasmuch as they
are relied upon to connect the alleged activities of the organisation
with the subsequent procurement and proposed transportation of
explosive material.
39. The allegation concerning the proposed transportation of
IEDs to Jaipur cannot, at the present stage, be treated as an
isolated circumstance divorced from the alleged meeting, the
proposed recording of the act and the electronic material stated to
have been recovered during investigation. The cumulative effect of
these circumstances, together with the remaining material forming
part of the prosecution record, is required to be assessed for the
limited purpose of determining whether the charges framed by the
learned Trial Court disclose a legally sustainable basis for
proceeding to trial. The case is not one in which the prosecution
relies solely upon the alleged existence of an organisation or upon
an association between the accused persons. The prosecution
seeks to rely upon a chain of circumstances, comprising the
(Uploaded on 26/10/2026 at 08:12:41 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/10/2026 at 03:02:26 PM)

(25 of 37)
[2026:RJ-JP:41947-DB] [CRLAD-266/2024]
alleged activities of SUFA, the meeting dated 25.03.2022, the
alleged decision concerning the collection and transportation of
IEDs to Jaipur, the proposed recording of the act, the electronic
material recovered from the mobile phone of accused Aqib, and
the recovery of explosive material from the vehicle intercepted
during the investigation. Whether every link in the said chain will
ultimately be established, and what evidentiary value is to be
attached to each circumstance, are matters to be determined at
trial. At the present stage, however, the material cannot be
assessed by severing each circumstance from the broader factual
context in which the prosecution relies upon it.
40. The allegations, if established, concern the alleged
procurement and transportation of explosive substances in
furtherance of a criminal conspiracy. The use of explosive
substances in the commission of a terrorist act has the potential to
endanger human life, cause widespread injury and destruction,
disrupt public order and threaten the security of the community.
Where the prosecution alleges a concerted plan involving
explosive devices and their proposed transportation to a major
city, the gravity and potential consequences of the alleged conduct
are matters which cannot be disregarded while appreciating the
nature of the prosecution case. The constitutional obligation of the
State to protect the life and security of its citizens is undoubtedly
of paramount importance. Offences involving alleged terrorist
activities and the planned use of explosive substances raise
concerns extending beyond an ordinary dispute between private
individuals. The statutory framework of the UAPA reflects the
(Uploaded on 26/10/2026 at 08:12:41 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/10/2026 at 03:02:26 PM)

(26 of 37)
[2026:RJ-JP:41947-DB] [CRLAD-266/2024]
legislative determination that activities threatening the
sovereignty, integrity and security of India require a distinct legal
response. Nevertheless, the seriousness of the allegations cannot,
by itself, establish the guilt of any accused. It is the existence of
material satisfying the applicable legal threshold, and not the
mere invocation of national security, which justifies continuation of
the prosecution.
41. Consequently, the national-security dimension of the present
case reinforces the need for a careful and legally disciplined
examination of the prosecution record; it does not dilute the
requirement that the ingredients of the offences charged must be
prima facie disclosed. The Court must neither trivialise allegations
concerning the proposed use of IEDs nor allow the gravity of such
allegations to substitute for the statutory test governing the
framing of charges.
THE INDIVIDUAL ROLES ATTRIBUTED TO THE
APPELLANTS :
42. A further consideration arising in the present batch of
appeals is the contention that the prosecution has not established
the individual involvement of each appellant in the alleged
conspiracy. The appellants have pointed to the fact that they were
not all apprehended from the vehicle in which the explosive
material was allegedly recovered and that no illegal material was
recovered during certain searches conducted at their premises.
They have also questioned the significance of the alleged travel
records, common mobile-phone locations, electronic material and
the alleged participation in meetings or training activities.
(Uploaded on 26/10/2026 at 08:12:41 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/10/2026 at 03:02:26 PM)

(27 of 37)
[2026:RJ-JP:41947-DB] [CRLAD-266/2024]
43. The Court is conscious that criminal liability is individual and
that the mere association of a person with other accused persons
cannot, without more, establish his participation in a criminal
conspiracy or the commission of a terrorist act. Equally, the
absence of a physical recovery from an individual accused does
not, as an inflexible proposition of law, preclude the prosecution
from relying upon other legally admissible circumstances to
establish the requisite connection with the alleged offences. The
relevance of the absence of recovery, therefore, depends upon the
nature of the charge and the totality of the material relied upon
against the particular accused. In the present case, the
prosecution has relied upon different circumstances against the
respective appellants. Insofar as Aakif Atteq Nahar is concerned,
the grounds of challenge refer to the alleged recording of training
material in his mobile phone and its subsequent transfer to a pen
drive belonging to accused Ameen Pawada, in addition to the
circumstances surrounding his arrest and the search of his
premises. In the case of Mazhar Khan, the challenge concerns,
inter alia, the alleged air tickets, the location material and the
absence of direct recovery. The grounds raised by Imran Khan
include the allegations concerning SUFA, the alleged destruction or
demolition of the poultry farm and house, and the allegation of
police torture.
44. The appeal in D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 380/2024 raises
further questions concerning the circumstances of arrest, the
alleged recovery of a pickaxe, the alleged failure to trace
chemicals in the car, the police confessional statement and the
(Uploaded on 26/10/2026 at 08:12:41 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/10/2026 at 03:02:26 PM)

(28 of 37)
[2026:RJ-JP:41947-DB] [CRLAD-266/2024]
identification referred to in the grounds of appeal. These
circumstances have been noticed to demonstrate that the
challenges raised by the appellants are not identical in every
respect. Nevertheless, the fact that the appeals arise from the
same investigation and involve overlapping allegations permits
their adjudication by a common judgment, provided that the role
attributed to each appellant is assessed separately. The Court
does not proceed on the assumption that the allegations against
one accused automatically establish the guilt of another. Rather,
the question in each appeal is whether the material attributed to
the concerned appellant, considered in the context of the entire
prosecution record, provides sufficient grounds for proceeding with
the charges framed against him.
45. The contention that certain appellants were not present in
the vehicle at the time of its interception does not, by itself,
answer the prosecution allegation of a prior conspiracy. A
conspiracy, by its very nature, may involve different participants
performing different acts at different stages. Its existence and the
participation of a particular accused must be assessed from the
circumstances relied upon by the prosecution, including any
alleged meetings, communications, preparations and subsequent
conduct. Whether the prosecution will ultimately establish the
requisite agreement or common design is a matter for trial; at the
stage of framing charges, the inquiry remains confined to whether
the material gives rise to the requisite prima facie inference.
46. Similarly, the absence of a recovery from the premises of an
accused person, while relevant, is not necessarily decisive where
(Uploaded on 26/10/2026 at 08:12:41 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/10/2026 at 03:02:26 PM)

(29 of 37)
[2026:RJ-JP:41947-DB] [CRLAD-266/2024]
the prosecution relies upon other material to establish the alleged
participation. The Court must examine whether the remaining
material, if accepted at face value, is capable of supporting the
essential ingredients of the offence. It would be inappropriate at
this stage to treat the absence of a particular category of evidence
as automatically negating all other circumstances relied upon by
the prosecution.
47. In the ratio enunciated in Asim Shariff v. National
17
Investigation Agency , the Hon’ble Supreme Court considered
a challenge to an order refusing discharge in a prosecution
involving offences under the UAPA and other penal provisions. The
Court reiterated that the question at the stage of framing of
charges is whether the material on record discloses a prima facie
case and whether the circumstances give rise to grave suspicion
warranting a trial. The Court cautioned against converting the
discharge proceedings into a detailed evaluation of the evidence or
deciding questions which are properly reserved for trial. The
principles enunciated therein are directly relevant to the nature of
the challenge raised in the present appeals.
48. The appellants have questioned the evidentiary value of the
electronic material, the alleged travel records and the location
information relied upon by the prosecution. Such objections
cannot be rejected merely because the prosecution has referred to
electronic material in the charge-sheet. The Court must remain
satisfied that the material, as presented in the prosecution record,
is relevant to the alleged offences and is capable of supporting the
17 (2019) 7 SCC 148
(Uploaded on 26/10/2026 at 08:12:41 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/10/2026 at 03:02:26 PM)

(30 of 37)
[2026:RJ-JP:41947-DB] [CRLAD-266/2024]
inference sought to be drawn against the concerned accused. At
the same time, questions concerning the authenticity,
admissibility, reliability and ultimate probative value of such
material must be considered in accordance with law and, where
they require evidentiary examination, at the appropriate stage of
the trial.
49. The prosecution's reliance upon videos allegedly recovered
from the mobile phone of accused Aakif assumes significance
because the videos are stated to relate to the proposed recording
of the act concerning the collection and transportation of IEDs.
The appellants' challenge to the significance of such material
cannot be finally resolved merely by considering whether a
particular video, viewed in isolation, conclusively proves an
offence. The relevant inquiry at the present stage is whether the
electronic material, read with the remaining circumstances relied
upon by the prosecution, is capable of supporting the allegations
forming the basis of the charges.
50. The Court is not unmindful of the distinction between the
existence of an electronic record and the inference which may
lawfully be drawn from it. The prosecution must establish the
relevant foundational facts and satisfy the applicable requirements
of admissibility and proof. The present observations, however, do
not determine the admissibility of any particular electronic record
or dispense with the prosecution's obligation to prove its case in
accordance with law. They are confined to the conclusion that the
ultimate evidentiary worth of the material cannot be conclusively
determined in the present proceedings unless the challenge
(Uploaded on 26/10/2026 at 08:12:41 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/10/2026 at 03:02:26 PM)

(31 of 37)
[2026:RJ-JP:41947-DB] [CRLAD-266/2024]
demonstrates a fundamental legal defect or an absence of
material sufficient to sustain the charge.
THE STATUTORY FRAMEWORK AND THE GRAVITY OF THE
ALLEGED OFFENCES :
51. The offences alleged against the appellants arise under
multiple statutory enactments, including the Explosive Substances
Act, 1908, the UAPA and the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The
prosecution alleges not merely the possession or recovery of
explosive material but circumstances indicative of a wider
conspiracy involving the alleged collection and transportation of
IEDs. The applicability of the respective statutory provisions must,
of course, depend upon the ingredients of each offence and the
material relied upon against each appellant.
52. In National Investigation Agency v. Zahoor Ahmad
18
Shah Watali , the Hon’ble Supreme Court considered the
statutory framework governing bail under the UAPA and
emphasised the importance of examining the prosecution material
in the context of the special legislative provisions applicable to
terrorist offences. The decision arose in the context of the
statutory restrictions on the grant of bail and is not to be treated
as prescribing an identical test for framing charges. Nevertheless,
it underscores that proceedings involving alleged terrorist
activities must be considered within the applicable statutory
framework, rather than by disregarding the nature of the offences
alleged. The ultimate question in the present appeals continues to
be governed by the principles applicable to discharge and framing
18 (2019) 5 SCC 1
(Uploaded on 26/10/2026 at 08:12:41 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/10/2026 at 03:02:26 PM)

(32 of 37)
[2026:RJ-JP:41947-DB] [CRLAD-266/2024]
of charges. The seriousness of the alleged conduct is relevant to
understanding the nature of the prosecution case, particularly
where the allegations concern explosive substances, an alleged
conspiracy and a proposed act in Jaipur. However, the Court
reiterates that the seriousness of an offence cannot relieve the
prosecution of its obligation to establish the case through legally
admissible evidence. Nor can the national-security implications of
the allegations justify the continuation of a charge where the
statutory ingredients are wholly absent. The present appeals must
therefore be decided on the basis of the applicable legal threshold
and the material forming part of the record.
53. It has been submitted on behalf of the prosecution that a
supplementary charge-sheet was filed on 28.11.2023, following
further investigation. The supplementary charge-sheet forms part
of the procedural history of the case and the material contained
therein must be considered to the extent it forms part of the
record relevant to the impugned orders. The mere filing of a
supplementary charge-sheet does not, by itself, establish the truth
of the allegations; equally, its filing cannot be disregarded where
the material contained therein is relevant to the issues arising in
the appeals. The prosecution has also referred to the dismissal of
bail applications by the High Court vide orders dated 21.01.2023
and 16.08.2023, and by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order
dated 18.01.2024. The said orders form part of the procedural
background placed before the Court. However, the determination
of a bail application and the determination of whether charges
should be framed are distinct exercises governed by their
(Uploaded on 26/10/2026 at 08:12:41 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/10/2026 at 03:02:26 PM)

(33 of 37)
[2026:RJ-JP:41947-DB] [CRLAD-266/2024]
respective legal standards. The dismissal of bail applications
cannot, by itself, be treated as proof of guilt or as conclusive
validation of the impugned order framing charges.
54. A significant aspect of the present proceedings is that the
appellants have challenged an order framing charges, whereas the
trial has not yet culminated in a final judgment. The Court
considers it necessary to emphasise that the stage of framing
charges is preliminary to the recording and appreciation of
evidence at trial. The appellants will have the opportunity, in
accordance with law, to challenge the prosecution evidence
through cross-examination, raise objections to admissibility where
legally permissible, and advance their defence at the appropriate
stage. The pendency of the trial does not, by itself, furnish a
ground either to dismiss the present appeals or to uphold the
impugned order. Equally, the fact that the trial has not concluded
cannot justify the premature determination of disputed questions
of fact in favour of either side. The relevant consideration is
whether the learned Trial Court correctly applied the threshold for
framing charges on the material then available before it. Where
the material discloses the essential ingredients of the offences and
raises grave suspicion against the accused, the proper course is
ordinarily to permit the trial to proceed, leaving the final
determination of guilt to be made upon completion of the
evidentiary process.
(Uploaded on 26/10/2026 at 08:12:41 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/10/2026 at 03:02:26 PM)

(34 of 37)
[2026:RJ-JP:41947-DB] [CRLAD-266/2024]
WHETHER THE IMPUGNED ORDER WARRANTS
INTERFERENCE :
55. Having considered the grounds raised by the appellants and
the prosecution's response, this Court finds that the principal
challenge is directed towards the interpretation, sufficiency and
evidentiary significance of the material collected during
investigation. The appellants have sought to rely upon the
absence of direct recovery in certain cases, the circumstances
surrounding the interception of the vehicle, the alleged
deficiencies in the location and travel records, the alleged
electronic material and the individual circumstances of arrest.
These matters are relevant to the prosecution case; however, their
ultimate effect cannot be conclusively determined by undertaking
a piecemeal evaluation of the evidence at the present stage. The
prosecution, on the other hand, relies upon the cumulative
circumstances concerning the alleged formation and activities of
SUFA, the showing of ISIS-related videos to the youth, the alleged
meeting dated 25.03.2022, the decision to collect IEDs and
transport the same to Jaipur, the proposed recording of the act,
the videos allegedly recovered from accused Aakif’s mobile phone,
and the further material collected during investigation. It is upon
this cumulative factual foundation that the prosecution seeks to
sustain the charges framed against the appellants.
56. The Court is of the considered view that the question is not
whether each circumstance, taken independently, is sufficient to
establish the guilt of an appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The
inquiry is whether the material attributed to the concerned
(Uploaded on 26/10/2026 at 08:12:41 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/10/2026 at 03:02:26 PM)

(35 of 37)
[2026:RJ-JP:41947-DB] [CRLAD-266/2024]
appellant, considered alongside the remaining relevant material,
gives rise to the requisite prima facie case or grave suspicion in
respect of the offences charged. The ultimate truth of the
allegations, the credibility of the prosecution witnesses, the
admissibility and probative value of the electronic material, and
the competing inferences sought to be drawn from the
circumstances are matters which must be determined in
accordance with law during trial.
57. The allegations concerning the proposed collection and
transportation of IEDs to Jaipur, if established, involve conduct of
a grave nature with potentially serious consequences for public
safety and national security. The Court cannot, however, permit
the gravity of the allegations to supplant the legal test governing
the framing of charges. Having applied that test to the nature of
the grounds raised and the prosecution case as presented, this
Court finds no demonstrated basis in the present appeals to
undertake a detailed reassessment of the evidence or to substitute
a final determination on disputed facts for the trial process. It is
also relevant that the learned Trial Court has discharged certain
accused persons from specific offences while proceeding to frame
charges under other provisions. The impugned order thus reflects
a consideration of the applications for discharge with reference to
the offences and material placed before the Court. The fact that
certain charges were not sustained against an accused does not,
by itself, render the remaining charges legally untenable. Each
charge must be assessed in the light of its statutory ingredients
and the material relied upon in support thereof. In the absence of
(Uploaded on 26/10/2026 at 08:12:41 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/10/2026 at 03:02:26 PM)

(36 of 37)
[2026:RJ-JP:41947-DB] [CRLAD-266/2024]
a demonstrated legal bar or a clear failure of the material to
disclose the essential ingredients of the offences charged, the
Court is not persuaded that interference with the impugned order
is warranted.
58. It is clarified that the aforesaid observations are confined to
the limited purpose of determining the validity of the order
framing charges. Nothing stated herein shall be construed as an
expression of opinion on the ultimate guilt or innocence of any
appellant. The learned Trial Court shall proceed with the trial
independently, in accordance with law, uninfluenced by any
observation herein which is not necessary for deciding the present
appeals.
CONCLUSION :
59. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, this Court finds no
sufficient ground to interfere with the impugned order dated
31.07.2024, insofar as it has been challenged by the appellants in
the present batch of appeals. The material and circumstances
relied upon by the prosecution, as presented for consideration at
this stage, do not warrant the premature termination of the
criminal proceedings by way of discharge.
60. Consequently, the present appeals are dismissed . The
impugned order dated 31.07.2024 is upheld to the extent
challenged in the respective appeals. The learned Trial Court is
directed to proceed with the trial in accordance with law and
endeavour to conclude the proceedings expeditiously, subject to
the applicable procedural requirements and without being
influenced by the observations made herein. It is reiterated that
(Uploaded on 26/10/2026 at 08:12:41 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/10/2026 at 03:02:26 PM)

(37 of 37)
[2026:RJ-JP:41947-DB] [CRLAD-266/2024]
the dismissal of the present appeals shall not be construed as a
finding of guilt against any appellant. All questions concerning the
admissibility, reliability and evidentiary value of the prosecution
material, as well as the ultimate determination of the charges,
shall remain open for adjudication by the learned Trial Court in
accordance with law.
61. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
62. A copy of the present judgment be placed in the connected
appeals.
(SAMEER JAIN),J (SANJAY K. AGRAWAL),CJ
DEEPAK/
(Uploaded on 26/10/2026 at 08:12:41 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/10/2026 at 03:02:26 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)