Grant of Bail on Grounds of Parity in UAPA Cases Where Co-accused Are Released

The appellant was arrayed as Accused No. 39 in a case involving the Popular Front of India (PFI) and its alleged "Chakia Module." He was charged under Sections 17, 18, and 18A of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).

The prosecution alleged that the appellant facilitated the supply of funds from the UAE to other accused members for furthering the unlawful activities of the PFI.

Investigative findings pointed to suspicious cash deposits in his Canara Bank account involving co-accused persons Sinan (A-31) and Sarfaraz Nawaz (A-32).

The appellant contested his arrest, claiming he was not served grounds of arrest, and sought bail on the grounds of parity with co-accused persons who had been granted bail by either the High Court or the Supreme Court.

The Special Court (NIA), Patna, rejected his bail application on 10.10.2025.

1. Whether the grounds of arrest and procedural requirements for remand were duly complied with at the time of the appellant's arrest.

2. Whether the appellant is entitled to regular bail based on the principle of parity with co-accused persons and the prolonged duration of custody without significant trial progress.

The court primarily applied Section 43D(5) of the UAPA, which restricts bail if there are reasonable grounds to believe the accusation is prima facie true.

It considered the "triple test" for bail (flight risk, tampering with evidence, and influencing witnesses) as elucidated in Dataram Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement.

Additionally, it applied Article 21 of the Constitution concerning the right to a speedy trial, as discussed in Vernon v. State of Maharashtra, where prolonged incarceration without the possibility of a timely trial conclusion warrants bail despite UAPA restrictions.

Procedurally, the court looked at Section 480(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).

Regarding the procedural challenge, the court found that the Special Judge had documented signatures of the appellant on the arrest and search memos, and the Duty Magistrate in Delhi had verified the grounds of arrest as justified; thus, the claim of non-compliance was rejected.

On the merits of bail, the court found that while the NIA alleged the appellant was an "associate" facilitating funds, his role was identical to or less severe than several co-accused—including Riyaz Moarif (A-4), Sinan (A-31), and others—who had already been granted bail by the High Court or Supreme Court.

The court observed that the appellant had been in custody for approximately one and a half years with 426 witnesses cited and minimal progress in the trial.

Distinguishing this from cases where bail was denied (e.g., A-37, a former SIMI member), the court held that the appellant stood on an equal footing with those already released.

It held that the appellant was entitled to bail on the ground of parity and the slow pace of the trial.

The appellant was ordered to be released on a bail bond of Rs. 25,000 with two sureties, subject to conditions including the surrender of his passport, regular attendance at trial, and non-departure from India without court permission.