Calcutta HC Denies Bail After Nearly 4 Years in Custody, Citing Prima Facie Evidence of ISIS-Linked Youth Recruitment

The appellant, arrested on 6 January 2023 in a UAPA case, sought bail after more than three years and ten months in custody.

He argued that only three of 52 charge-sheet witnesses had been examined, that the electronic material allegedly recovered from his devices did not establish an offence, and that the grounds of arrest had not been communicated to him.

The NIA alleged that the appellant used Telegram and virtual numbers to communicate with persons abroad, circulate ISIS propaganda, recruit and radicalise youths, and discuss extremist violence; it relied on forensic extraction reports and the statement of witness Farhan Javed.

The Court considered the evidence of trial progress, including that charges had been framed, that the appellant had sought discharge, and that cross-examination of witnesses had been deferred.

Section 43D(5) of the UAPA restricts bail where, on perusal of the case diary or police report, the Court finds reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation is prima facie true.

Under National Investigation Agency v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali, the bail court does not conduct a threadbare evaluation of evidence or a mini-trial; Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb establishes that the statutory restriction does not exclude constitutional bail where prolonged incarceration and the absence of a reasonable prospect of timely trial imperil fundamental rights, though the statutory policy remains relevant.

Under Thwaha Fasal v. Union of India, association with or support for a terrorist organisation must be accompanied by an intention to further its activities, which may be inferred from overt acts or active participation; Vernon v. State of Maharashtra holds that mere possession of literature, without more, does not by itself establish the relevant terrorist activity.

The Court also referred to Gulfisha Fatima and Tasleem Ahmed for the proposition that trial delay is not automatically attributable to the prosecution.

The Court found that the extracted Telegram communications allegedly showed exchanges with persons abroad about recruiting Indian youths for militant activity, as well as discussions of attacks and killings.

It treated these communications, together with the alleged circulation of videos and the evidence concerning Farhan, as indicating active involvement rather than mere possession of literature; it therefore distinguished Vernon and considered the alleged conduct consistent with the overt-act principle in Thwaha Fasal.

On delay, the Court found no intentional prosecution laches: charges had been framed, the appellant’s discharge proceedings and deferral of cross-examination had affected trial progress, and the number of witnesses was not unreasonable given the case’s nature.

It concluded that the case had not reached the “melting point” contemplated in Najeeb.

The Court treated the grounds-of-arrest contention as academic in light of the timing of the arrest and the subsequent decisions relied on by the appellant.

It rejected the bail prayer and dismissed CRA (DB) 324 of 2025.