Case Name: Union of India v. Barakathullah Etc.
Case Number: Criminal Appeal Nos. 2715 – 2719 of 2024 (SLP (Crl.) Nos. 14036-14040 of 2023)
Dated On: May 22nd, 2024
Quorum: The judgment was delivered by Justice Bela M. Trivedi, with Justice Pankaj Mithal also presiding.
FACTS OF THE CASE
The investigation revealed activities of certain individuals associated with the Popular Front of India (PFI) aimed at establishing Islamic rule in India by 2047. Several PFI members were accused of organizing terrorist camps, delivering instigating speeches, spreading fake news, and plotting violent acts against perceived opponents. The accused individuals faced charges under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), including conspiracy, inciting violence, and preparing for terrorist acts. The charges were supported by statements from protected and listed witnesses, as well as materials collected during the investigation, such as digital devices, books, and photographs. The PFI was described as an organization projecting itself as fighting for minority rights but allegedly had an agenda to radicalize Muslim youth and undermine democracy in India. The High Court granted bail to the accused, which was criticized by the Supreme Court for not considering the evidence against them and misinterpreting relevant provisions of the UAPA. The Supreme Court set aside the bail order and directed the accused to surrender for trial.
ISSUES
- Whether the High Court erred in its interpretation of the evidence and relevant laws?
- Whether the charges under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) were adequately considered by the High Court?
- Whether the bail granted to the accused by the High Court was justified given the gravity of the alleged offences and the evidence presented?
LEGAL PROVISIONS
- Sections 120B, 121A, 124A, 153A, 505(1)(b), 505(1)(c), and 505(2) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
- Sections 13, 18, 18A, 18B, 38, and 39 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).
CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT
The appellant, the National Investigation Agency (NIA), asserted that a conspiracy existed among the respondents to strengthen the Popular Front of India (PFI), recruit members, impart weapon training, and commit unlawful acts. They argued that the objective of this conspiracy was to establish Islamic rule in India by 2047, posing a threat to the nation’s unity, integrity, security, and sovereignty. The NIA contended that ample material evidence, including statements from protected and listed witnesses, digital devices, books, and photographs collected during the investigation, supported the accusations against the respondents. They emphasized that this evidence, until rebutted or contradicted, established the prima facie involvement of the respondents in the alleged offenses. The appellant argued that the High Court erred in its interpretation of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), particularly regarding Section 18. They highlighted that Section 18 does not necessitate proving the commission of a terrorist act under Section 15 for its application. Instead, it encompasses conspiracies or attempts to commit terrorist acts, making it applicable based on preparatory acts alone. Thus, the High Court’s failure to grasp this distinction constituted a manifest error.
CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT
The respondents refuted the allegations leveled against them by the NIA, asserting that they were falsely implicated in the case. They argued that they were not involved in any conspiracy to establish Islamic rule in India or to commit terrorist acts. Instead, they claimed to be innocent individuals targeted due to their association with the Popular Front of India (PFI), which they portrayed as a lawful organization fighting for minority rights. The respondents challenged the credibility of the evidence presented by the NIA, arguing that it was unreliable and insufficient to establish their involvement in the alleged offenses. They contended that the statements of protected and listed witnesses were untrustworthy and lacked corroboration. Additionally, they questioned the admissibility of digital devices and other materials collected during the investigation, arguing that they were obtained unlawfully or could be tampered with The respondents raised concerns about their fundamental rights, particularly their right to liberty and fair trial. They argued that their prolonged detention without bail violated their constitutional rights, emphasizing that they had been in custody for a relatively short period and were entitled to bail under Article 21 of the Constitution. They also criticized the NIA’s interpretation of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), alleging that it amounted to an overreach and undermined their rights as accused individuals. These contentions underscored the respondents’ stance of innocence, their challenges to the credibility of the evidence presented against them, and their assertions of violations of their legal rights during the investigation and judicial proceedings.Top of Form
COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT
The court carefully scrutinized the evidence presented by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) against the respondents. It noted that the statements of protected and listed witnesses, as well as other materials collected during the investigation, provided sufficient grounds to establish a prima facie case against the respondents. The court emphasized that at this stage, it was not required to assess the reliability or admissibility of the evidence in detail but rather to determine whether there were reasonable grounds to believe the accusations against the respondents were true.
The court clarified the legal framework under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and its applicability to the case. It highlighted that Section 18 of the UAPA does not necessitate the actual commission of a terrorist act but encompasses conspiracy, attempts, and preparatory acts related to terrorism. The court rejected the respondents’ argument that the prosecution failed to establish their involvement in terrorist activities, reiterating that Section 18 encompasses a broader range of offenses beyond the actual commission of terrorism.
Regarding the respondents’ plea for bail, the court emphasized the seriousness and gravity of the alleged offenses, as well as the respondents’ criminal antecedents and the evidence collected against them. It noted that the respondents had been in custody for a relatively short period, but their previous involvement in multiple cases and the severity of the alleged offenses warranted caution in granting bail. The court concluded that the impugned order granting bail by the High Court was erroneous and set it aside.
The court underscored the importance of national security and the need to balance civil liberties with the state’s compelling interest in counter-terrorism measures. It emphasized that acts aiding terrorist activities, whether violent or non-violent, are subject to restriction, and the UAPA serves to prevent unlawful activities and terrorist acts. The court’s decision aimed to uphold national security interests while ensuring a fair trial for the accused.
In summary, the court upheld the prosecution’s evidence, interpreted the UAPA’s provisions, denied the respondents’ plea for bail based on the gravity of the alleged offenses and considerations of national security, and emphasized the importance of balancing civil liberties with the state’s duty to combat terrorism.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Judgement Reviewed by- Shruti Gattani
