2024 INSC 452 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 2715 - 2719 OF 2024

(@ SLP (Crl.) Nos. 14036-14040 of 2023)

UNION OF INDIA

rep. by the Inspector of Police

National Investigation Agency

Chennai Branch …APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

BARAKATHULLAH ETC. …RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T

BELA M. TRIVEDI, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The Central Government in Ministry of Home Affairs, CTCR Division

having received a credible information that the office bearers, members

and cadres of Popular Front of India (PFI), an extremist Islamic

organization have been spreading its extremist ideology across Tamil

Nadu, by establishing State Headquarters at Purasaiwakkam, Chennai

2

and also offices in various districts of Tamil Nadu and that through their

frontal Organizations like Campus Front of India, National Women’s

Front, Social Democratic Party of India etc., they conspire for committing

terrorist acts, raise funds for committing terrorist activities and recruit

members for furthering their extremist ideology, and that the frontal

organizations and PFI were involved in the recruitment of members to

various prescribed terrorist organizations, passed an order on 16

th

September 2022, in exercise of the powers conferred under sub-section

(5) of Section 6 read with Section 8 of the National Investigation Agency

Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘NIA Act’), directing the National

Investigation Agency to take up investigation of the said case. In view of

the said order, an FIR being RC-42/2022/NIA/DLI came to be registered

on 19.09.2022 against the present respondents and other members and

office bearers of PFI for the offences under Section 120(b), 153(A),

153(AA) of IPC and Section 13,17,18,18(B), 38 and 39 of the Unlawful

Activities (Prevention) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the “UAPA”).

3. During the course of investigation, the respondents-accused herein

came to be arrested on 22.09.2022 for the alleged offences. They filed

their respective bail applications before the Special Court under the NIA

Act (Sessions Court for Exclusive Trial of Bomb Blast Cases). The

3

Special Court after considering the case diary, the documents and

material produced before it, and after having been satisfied about the

prima facie case made out against the respondents-accused as also

considering the provisions of Section 43D of the UAPA in the light of the

position of law settled by this Court in various decisions, dismissed the

said bail applications filed by the respondents.

4. Being aggrieved by the said orders, the respondents filed Criminal

Appeals being CRLA Nos. 98, 114 and 116 of 2023 before the High

Court of Judicature at Madras. It appears that some of the respondents-

accused had also filed Cr.L.M.P Nos. 11595 and 8094/2023 seeking

interim bail pending the said appeals. During the pendency of the said

Appeals, the chargesheet came to be filed by the appellant-NIA against

all the respondents alongwith other accused on 17.03.2023 for the

offences under Sections 120B, 121A, 122, 153A, 505(1)(b), (c), (2) of

IPC and Sections 13,18, 18A, 18B of UAPA. The High Court after taking

into consideration the submissions made by the learned Counsels for

the parties and materials placed on record including the Chargesheet,

allowed the said Appeals by the common impugned order dated

19.10.2023, releasing the respondents on bail subject to the conditions

mentioned therein. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present set of

4

appeals have been filed by the Union of India through NIA, Chennai

Branch.

5. At the outset, the learned counsels for the respondents raising

preliminary objection had submitted that the appellant having failed to

mention about the SLP (Crl.) No.9384/2023 which was preferred by the

appellant against the co-accused for cancellation of the bail arising out

of the same FIR, the present appeal was liable to be dismissed under

Order XXII, Rule 2(3) of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013. The said

submission cannot be accepted. Rule 2(2) of Order XXII mandates inter

alia that no petition shall be entertained by the Registry unless it

contains a statement as to whether the petitioner had filed any petition

for special leave to appeal against the impugned judgment or order

earlier, and if so with what result. Rule 2(3) thereof states that the Court

shall, if it finds that the petitioner has not disclosed the fact of filing a

similar petition earlier and its dismissal by the Court, dismiss the second

petition if it is pending. It may be noted that earlier no special leave to

appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment and order dated

19.10.2023 passed by the High Court and hence question of filing

Second Petition does not arise. Though, the SLP (Crl.) No. 9384/2023

was filed earlier by the appellant seeking cancellation of bail granted to

5

the co-accused in respect of the same FIR, the same has already been

referred to in the impugned order by the High Court. This set of appeals

cannot be treated as Second Petition as sought to be canvassed by the

learned counsels for the respondents.

6. So far as the merits of the Appeals are concerned, the learned advocate

Mr. Rajat Nair for the appellant has vehemently submitted that the High

Court had miserably failed to comprehend the correct import of Section

18 read with the definition of terrorist act contemplated under Section

15 of the UAPA for releasing the respondents on bail who have been

charged with very serious offences. According to him, the High Court

had fallen into patent and manifest error in not appreciating the overt

acts and commission of alleged offences by the respondents, as stated

by the listed witnesses/protected witnesses. Mr. Nair placing heavy

reliance on the statements of the protected witnesses/listed witnesses

had taken the court to the said statements to show the role and

involvement of each of the respondents in the commission of the alleged

offences under the IPC and UAPA. According to him, though some of

the witnesses whose statements were recorded under Section 161/164

Cr.P.C. and relied upon by the appellant, were the members of the PFI

when it was not banned by the Government of India, they had not

6

participated in the alleged unlawful activities, and hence their

statements till they are rebutted or contradicted could be relied upon.

He further submitted that the High Court has committed grave error in

trivializing the serious allegations made against the respondents by

holding that except the witnesses having stated about respondents

organizing weapon training for using knives and swords and to train

members to throw beer bottles filled with water on targets, there is no

material to suggest commission of any offence which falls under Section

15 of UAPA, whereas all these alleged acts were part of the preparation

of committing terrorist acts, particularly when the respondents were

imparting training as to how to hurl bombs by using water filled beer

bottles and how to use weapons like knives and swords to strike terror

in the mind of people. Mr. Nair has also placed heavy reliance on the

latest decision of this Court in case of Gurwinder Singh vs. State of

Punjab and Another

1

which has relied upon the earlier decision in

National Investigation Agency vs. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali

2

to

submit that the special provision of Section 43(D) of UAPA applies right

from the stage of registration of FIR for the offences under Chapter IV

1

(2024) SCC OnLine SC 109

2

(2019) 5 SCC 1

7

and VI of the UAPA until the conclusion of the trial thereof, and that 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 offences or otherwise. Terming the impugned

order as perverse, he submitted that the High Court had failed to

appreciate that the oral statements of the witnesses and the recoveries

made during the course of investigation clearly made out a prima facie

case against the respondents regarding their involvement of the alleged

offences.

7. The learned Senior Counsels, Mrs. Rebecca John appearing for

respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4 (accused no. 1, 3 and 4), Mr. Devansh A.

Mohta appearing for respondent No.1 (accused No.7), Mrs. Mukta

Gupta appearing for respondent no. 5, 7 and 8 (accused No. 5, 8, 9) and

Mr. S. Balakrishnan appearing for R-6 (accused no.6) had emphatically

submitted that the reliance of the appellant on the statements made by

the protected/listed witnesses was highly improper as the said

witnesses themselves had participated in the alleged commission of

offences. According to them, the vague allegations made by the said

witnesses, could not be relied upon, more particularly when there was

no material brought on record to show any preparatory work done by

8

the respondents to prima facie make out the case against the

respondents. They also relied upon the observations made by the High

Court in the impugned order to submit that the High Court had in detail

considered the evidence collected by the appellant during the course of

the investigation and having not found substance in the same has

released the respondents on bail which order should not be interfered

with. Relying upon various decisions of this Court, they submitted that

the impugned order having been passed by the High Court exercising

its discretion, could neither be said to be illegal nor unjust.

8. It is trite to say that the consideration applicable for cancellation of bail

and consideration for challenging the order on the grant of bail on the

ground of arbitrary exercise of discretion are different. While considering

the application for cancellation of bail, the Court ordinarily looks for

some supervening circumstances like tampering of evidence either

during the investigation or during the trial, threatening of witness,

accused likely to abscond and the trial getting delayed on that account

etc. whereas in an order challenging the grant of bail on the ground that

it has been granted illegally, the consideration would be whether there

was improper or arbitrary exercise of discretion in the grant of bail or the

findings recorded were perverse. The instant appeals have been filed

9

by the appellant challenging the impugned order passed by the High

Court granting bail to the respondents- accused on the ground that not

only the High Court has arbitrarily exercised the discretion in favour of

the respondents, but also has recorded perverse findings while

exercising such discretion.

9. Before we appreciate the rival contentions raised by the learned counsel

for the parties, it would be apt to refer to some of the provisions of the

UAPA particularly with regard to the offences alleged against the

respondents. As per the chargesheet, the offences alleged against the

respondents are under Section 120B, 153A, 153AA of IPC and Section

13, 17, 18, 18A,18B, 38 and 39 of UAPA. So far as the offences under

the UAPA are concerned, Section 13 pertains to the punishment for

unlawful activities, Section 15 defines what is “terrorist act” and Section

16 prescribes punishment for the commission of the terrorist act. Section

17 pertains to the punishment for raising funds for terrorist act, Section

18 pertains to the punishment for conspiracy, etc. Section 18A pertains

to the punishment for organizing terrorist camps and Section 18B

pertains to the punishment for recruiting of person or persons for

terrorist act. All these offences fall under Chapter IV of the Act. However,

Section 38 which pertains to the offence relating to membership of a

10

terrorist organization and Section 39 which pertains to the offence

relating to support given to terrorist organization, fall under Chapter VI

of the said Act. Section 43D which was inserted by Act 35 of 2008,

pertains to the modified application of certain provisions of the Code of

Criminal Procedure. Sub-section (5) of Section 43D being relevant for

the purpose of these appeals, the same is reproduced hereunder:

“43D. Modified application of certain provisions of the Code

(1) to (4)……

(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code, no person

accused of an offence punishable under Chapters IV and VI of

this Act shall, if in custody, be released on bail or on his own bond

unless the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity of

being heard on the application for such release:

Provided that such accused person shall not be released on bail

or on his own bond if the Court, on a perusal of the case diary or

the report made under section 173 of the Code is of the opinion

that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the

accusation against such person is prima facie true….”

10. Since all offences alleged against the respondents are covered under

Chapter IV and VI of the UAPA, the rigors and restrictions of sub-section

(5) of Section 43D would apply to the facts of this case. It may be noted

that this Court in case of National Investigation Agency vs. Zahoor

Ahmad Shah Watali (supra), had an occasion to deal with the sub-

section (5) of Section 43D and in similar fact situation, after comparing

the similar provisions under the Special enactments such as TADA,

MCOCA, NDPS as also the earlier decisions of this court, had held as

under:

11

“23. ……By its very nature, the expression “prima facie true”

would mean that the materials/evidence collated by the

investigating agency in reference to the accusation against the

accused concerned in the first information report, must prevail

until contradicted and overcome or disproved by other evidence,

and on the face of it, shows the complicity of such accused in the

commission of the stated offence. It must be good and sufficient

on its face to establish a given fact or the chain of facts

constituting the stated offence, unless rebutted or contradicted.

In one sense, the degree of satisfaction is lighter when the Court

has to opine that the accusation is “prima facie true”, as

compared to the opinion of the accused “not guilty” of such

offence as required under the other special enactments. In any

case, the degree of satisfaction to be recorded by the Court for

opining that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the

accusation against the accused is prima facie true, is lighter than

the degree of satisfaction to be recorded for considering a

discharge application or framing of charges in relation to offences

under the 1967 Act……”

11. It was further observed: -

“24. A priori, the exercise to be undertaken by the Court at this

stage—of giving reasons for grant or non-grant of bail—is

markedly different from discussing merits or demerits of the

evidence. The elaborate examination or dissection of the

evidence is not required to be done at this stage. 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.

25. From the analysis of the impugned judgment [Zahoor Ahmad

Shah Watali v. NIA, 2018 SCC OnLine Del 11185] , it appears to

us that the High Court has ventured into an area of examining

the merits and demerits of the evidence. For, it noted that the

evidence in the form of statements of witnesses under Section

161 are not admissible. Further, the documents pressed into

service by the investigating agency were not admissible in

evidence. It also noted that it was unlikely that the document had

been recovered from the residence of Ghulam Mohammad Bhatt

till 16-8-2017 (para 61 of the impugned judgment). Similarly, the

approach of the High Court in completely discarding the

statements of the protected witnesses recorded under Section

12

164 CrPC, on the specious ground that the same was kept in a

sealed cover and was not even perused by the Designated Court

and also because reference to such statements having been

recorded was not found in the charge-sheet already filed against

the respondent is, in our opinion, in complete disregard of the

duty of the Court to record its opinion that the accusation made

against the accused concerned is prima facie true or otherwise.

That opinion must be reached by the Court not only in reference

to the accusation in the FIR but also in reference to the contents

of the case diary and including the charge-sheet (report under

Section 173 CrPC) and other material gathered by the

investigating agency during investigation.”

26. ……….

27. For that, the totality of the material gathered by the

investigating agency and presented along with the report and

including the case diary, is required to be reckoned and not by

analysing individual pieces of evidence or circumstance. In any

case, the question of discarding the document at this stage, on

the ground of being inadmissible in evidence, is not permissible.

For, the issue of admissibility of the document/evidence would be

a matter for trial. The Court must look at the contents of the

document and take such document into account as it is.”

12. The ratio of the said judgment has been consistently followed by this

Court in many cases, and recently in Gurwinder Singh vs. State of

Punjab and Another (supra), in which this court has culled out following

guidelines from Watali's Case:

“34. In the previous section, based on a textual reading, we

have discussed the broad inquiry which Courts seized of bail

applications under Section 43D(5) UAP Act r/w

Section 439 CrPC must indulge in. Setting out the framework of

the law seems rather easy, yet the application of it, presents its

own complexities. For greater clarity in the application of the test

set out above, it would be helpful to seek guidance from binding

precedents. In this regard, we need to look no further than

Watali's case which has laid down elaborate guidelines on the

approach that Courts must partake in, in their application of the

bail limitations under the UAP Act. On a perusal of paragraphs

13

23 to 29 and 32, the following 8-point propositions emerge and

they are summarised as follows:

• Meaning of ‘Prima facie true’ [para 23] : On the face of it, the

materials must show the complicity of the accused in commission

of the offence. The materials/evidence must be good and

sufficient to establish a given fact or chain of facts constituting

the stated offence, unless rebutted or contradicted by other

evidence.

• Degree of Satisfaction at Pre -Chargesheet, Post

Chargesheet and Post-Charges - Compared [para 23] : Once

charges are framed, it would be safe to assume that a very strong

suspicion was founded upon the materials before the Court,

which prompted the Court to form a presumptive opinion as to

the existence of the factual ingredients constituting the offence

alleged against the accused, to justify the framing of charge. In

that situation, the accused may have to undertake an arduous

task to satisfy the Court that despite the framing of charge, the

materials presented along with the charge-sheet (report under

Section 173 CrPC), do not make out reasonable grounds for

believing that the accusation against him is prima facie true.

Similar opinion is required to be formed by the Court whilst

considering the prayer for bail, made after filing of the first report

made under Section 173 of the Code, as in the present case.

• Reasoning, necessary but no detailed evaluation of

evidence [para 24] : The exercise to be undertaken by the Court

at this stage--of giving reasons for grant or non-grant of bail--is

markedly different from discussing merits or demerits of the

evidence. The elaborate examination or dissection of the

evidence is not required to be done at this stage.

• Record a finding on broad probabilities, not based on proof

beyond doubt [para 24]:“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.”

• Duration of the limitation under Section 43D(5) [para 26]

: The special provision, Section 43-D of the 1967 Act, applies

right from the stage of registration of FIR for the offences under

Chapters IV and VI of the 1967 Act until the conclusion of the trial

thereof.

• Material on record must be analysed as a ‘whole’; no

piecemeal analysis [para 27] : The totality of the material

gathered by the investigating agency and presented along with

the report and including the case diary, is required to be reckoned

and not by analysing individual pieces of evidence or

circumstance.

14

• Contents of documents to be presumed as true [para 27]

: The Court must look at the contents of the document and take

such document into account as it is.

• Admissibility of documents relied upon by Prosecution

cannot be questioned [para 27] : The materials/evidence

collected by the investigation agency in support of the accusation

against the accused in the first information report must prevail

until contradicted and overcome or disproved by other

evidence……. In any case, the question of discarding the

document at this stage, on the ground of being inadmissible in

evidence, is not permissible.”

13. In the light of the above, let us consider whether from the perusal of the

chargesheet and other material/documents produced against the

respondents, there are reasonable grounds for believing that

accusations against the respondents are prima facie true, as

contemplated in the proviso to sub-section (5) of Section 43D of UAPA.

It is quite well settled position of law that the chargesheet need not

contain detailed analysis of the evidence

*

. It is for the concerned court

considering the application for bail to assess the material/evidence

presented by the investigating authority along with the report under

Section 173 Cr.P.C. in its entirety, to form its opinion as to whether there

are reasonable grounds for believing the accusation against the

accused is prima facie true or not.

*

K. Veeraswami vs. Union of India and Others; (1991) 3 SCC 655

15

14. So far as the instant appeals are concerned, the chargesheet contains

a narration of the organisational structure of PFI, the objective of the

PFI, the activities of PFI and the identification of the physical education

instructors and masters as identified by the protected witnesses / listed

witnesses. For better appreciation, the relevant part of the chargesheet

is reproduced as under:

“17.10 The investigation disclosed that many Muslim youth were

recruited as PFI Cadres (Categorized as "Protected witnesses) -

B" (LW-8) were sent to Periyapattinam, Ramanathapuram to

attend beginners camp where he attended Tharbiya classes in

which PFI functionaries/preachers sermonized that Muslims who

were ruling India have been relegated as second grade citizens.

The Indian Muslims were systematically and increasingly getting

marginalized in their home land, the privileges earlier enjoyed by

Muslims in terms of property rights, etc. were withdrawn and

Government jobs were denied, trade facilities were restricted and

the rights of Sharia were being denied. They preached that the

Muslims were being attacked by Hindu right-wing leaders. During

the camp, PE classes were conducted in the morning and

evening in which they were taught to attack, assault, maim and

murder with bare hands. During the camps, PFI leaders namely

Adv. Kalith Mohammed and Barakatullah used to supervise the

activities of weapons training in the camp.

17.11 The investigation disclosed that the accused persons, A-1

along with A-2, A-3, A-5 and A-6 had approached one witness

categorized as "Protected witnesses -C & D” to expand the

Mohalla committees through Masjids and recruit Muslim youth in

to PFI organisation and impart weapons training to attack

targeted persons and establish Islamic rule in India. A-1 told

Protected Witness-C that Muslims should be united in order to

attack the Hindu leaders and their organizations for which more

young Muslims must join the PFI and they should equip

themselves with weapons training provided by the PFI through

Mohalla Committees. The PW-C also revealed that the objective

of PFI is to establish Islamic Rule in India through an Islamic

army. The Protected Witness-C also mentioned that A-4, A-8 later

met Protected Witness-D to convince them about the Mohalla

16

committees. Further, Protected Witness-C also stated that he

had opposed the move of PFI usurping the office of a body

named, confederation of mosques in Madurai, an apex governing

body of Muslims in Madurai in June 2022. Protected Witnesses

also stated that the accused persons knowingly and intentionally

wanted to control the confederation of mosques in Madurai, the

initiative to spread Mohalla committee activities of imparting

weapons training could easily sail through. Since Protected

Witnesses did not agree with the accused persons and opposed

them, he was being followed by some unknown persons.

17.12 The investigation disclosed that the accused A-4 insisted

on imparting weapons training to Muslim youth through mosques

and indoctrinating them in order to establish Islamic rule by 2047.

Further, investigation disclosed that A-8 mentioned that such

training was being imparted in PFI Arivagam, Theni and at

various parts of Ramanathapuram district so that the youth are

in readiness to commit terrorist acts and unlawful activities and

to disrupt the sovereignty and integrity of India and to establish

Islamic rule as per Shariah law. The investigation also disclosed

that NEC members including Adv. Md. Yusuf, AS Ismail and Md.

Ali Jinnah had also come to request for imparting weapons

training to Muslim youth through mosques.

17.13 The investigation disclosed that during the months of

November / December-2021, the accused persons A-1, A-2, A-3,

A-5, A-6 recruited more Muslim youth through the mosques into

PFI organisation and provided weapon training through Mohalla

Committee to commit terrorist acts. The investigation also

disclosed a three-pronged strategy of PFI organisation called

"Trishul" to destroy all those who are against Islam, who attempt

to destroy Islam and those who do not accept PFI organisation

even if they are Muslims.

17.14 The investigation disclosed that A-1 had explained in PFI

guidance classes on the importance of weapon training through

Mohalla Committee to target enemies of PFI who are against

Islamic rule in India. The investigation also disclosed that Subject

1, Subject 2 and Subject 3 are code words for training with

knives, iron rods and swords. During the beginners camp, many

Muslim youth who were recruited as PFI cadres were given

unarmed physical training with bare hands and how to attack and

neutralize targets. An introduction to weapons training was also

imparted. The training of weapons is given during beginners

camp, basic and secondary Physical training. Those who

performed well were selected for attack teams.

17

17.15 The investigation disclosed that during the year 2012 and

2020, criminal cases were registered when the PFI cadres had

conducted weapon training by A-4, A-7 and other PFI

leaders/cadres in Ramanathapuram to the PFI cadres including

recruits from various other states.

17.16 The investigation disclosed that the accused Ahamed

Idhris @ AM Idris @ MA Idris (A-1) is the state level speaker of

PFI and in charge of the Media team of PFI. He as a state level

speaker used to deliver instigating speeches in the meetings

organised by PFI. The accused had given speeches which were

intended to instill perceived threat among Muslin community

thereby making gullible Muslim youth to commit offences against

the State and to commit offences against a particular community.

To realize their larger conspiracy to make India an Islamic country

by the year 2047 by striking terror on a section of people, thereby

threatening the unity, integrity, security and sovereignty of India,

he incited the cadres in the meetings organised by PF1. In the

year 2022, PF1 organized a campaign called "Makkal

Sangamam" for which Public meetings and exhibitions were

organised all over Tamil Nadu, where the accused had given

speeches at meetings held at K. Pudur, Madurai District

Koothanallur, Tiruvarur District, and llayangudi, Sivanganga

District. Further, as a media team in charge, he used to organize

meetings of the team members. The primary duty of the media

team is to collect alarming news, reports containing rumour, and

spreading them among public and in the Masjids to create

feelings of enmity on grounds of religion and to disrupt the public

tranquility. With the same intent, he wrote articles for "Puthiya

Vidiyal” such as Suthanthira Porattathil Parpaniya Throgam,

Denial of justice (with regard to Babri Masjid Verdict). Further,

while he organized camps such as Beginners Camp, Basic Camp

and Secondary camps in which training to handle lethal

weapons, attacking on the vulnerable parts of body to kill the

enemy was imparted to PFI cadres as a preparation to wage a

war against the Government of India to achieve their goal of

establishing Islamic State in India by the year 2047.

17.17 ……

17.18 The investigation disclosed that the accused Mohammed

Abutbahir (A-3) is the district president of PFI Madurai district, he

organised terrorist camps in the name of PE to Muslim youth as

a preparation to wage a war against the Government of India to

achieve their goal of establishing Islamic State in India by the

year 2047. He is one of the organizers of PFI's campaign called

"Makkal Sangamam" for which Public meetings and exhibitions

were organized by him and other accused persons. In the

18

meetings, he arranged the display of swords, guns, organized

demonstration of lethal weapons to attract Muslim youth to join

PFI and to get trained in the terrorist camps conducted by PFI in

the name of PE classes and Mohalla Committee, and also to

create fear among a section of people on the basis of religion.

He is one of the PFI's core team members who created social

disharmony on the basis of religion by spreading fake news on

the Tiruparankundram hills or Sikkanthar Malai communal rift. He

plotted to split and divide members belonging to a confederation

of Muslim mosques in Madurai as the office bearers of the

Jamath were not co-operative for the unlawful activities of PFI

such as Sikkanthar Malai communal issue and for the Mohalla

Committee. In this process, he conspired with another PFI cadre

to murder a Muslim political leader (Protected witness) whose

name is suspected to be in the red category of the list created by

PFI. The accused also insisted that Muslim community members

join PFI's Mohalla committee in a public protest meeting

organized by PFI.

17.19 The investigation disclosed that the accused Adv. Kalith

Mohamed (A-4) is the State vice president of PFI Tamil Nadu.

The accused used to give speeches which were intended to

cause fear among Muslim community people and thereby making

gullible Muslim youth to commit offenses against the State and

to commit offences against a particular community. To achieve

their larger conspiracy of making India as Islamic country by the

year 2047 by striking terror on a section of people thereby

threatening the unity, integrity, security and sovereignty of India,

he gave speeches in the classes organized by PFI to its cadres.

The accused was working for PFI to recruit and organize

weapons training camps in the name of PE classes which were

held to achieve their larger conspiracy to make India an Islamic

country by the year 2047 by striking terror on a section of people

thereby threatening the unity, integrity, security and sovereignty

of India. Further, he actively engaged in the preparation to wage

war against the government of India to establish the Islamic State

in the year 2047.

17.20 The investigation disclosed that accused Syed Ishaaq (A-

5) is the District Secretary, PFI Madurai District. He used to

organize weapons training to PFI cadres in the guise of PE

classes, Beginners camps, etc., where the PFI cadres were

taught how to attack the vulnerable parts of the body and kill

people, training with lethal weapons such as knives, swords, iron

rods, etc. to achieve their goal to establish an Islamic State in

India by the year 2047. He is one of the PFI's core team members

which created social disharmony on the basis of religion by

19

spreading fake news about Tiruparankundram hills or Sikkanthar

Malai communal rift. Further he motivated Muslim community

youth to attend weapons training conducted by PFI in the guise

of PE classes thereby making them as hit squads to attack,

assault, maim and murder prominent persons even though they

belonged to Muslim community for opposing PFI.

17.21 The investigation disclosed that accused S Khaja

Mohideen (A-6) is the State level speaker of PFI and in-charge

for Mass Mobilization. Further, it is revealed that he used to

deliver speeches in the PFI camps and in the PFI meetings on

the materials / articles of ISIS which were published in the Voice

of Hind and Voice of Khorasan magazine. Further, he used to

preach about the Ghazwa-e-Hind ie., Battle against India to

motivate Muslim community people to prepare for waging war

against the Government of India and to establish an Islamic state

by the year 2047. He was involved in furthering and supporting

proscribed terrorist organizations. Further he motivated Muslim

community youth to attend weapons training conducted by PFI in

the guise of PE classes thereby making them as hit squads to

attack, assault, maim and murder prominent persons even

though they belong to Muslim community and oppose PFI. As in-

charge for Mass Mobilization, he used to make Muslim youth to

join PFI and educate them about the ancient Muslim rule over

India and the present situation of Muslim in India and make them

ready for the Ghazwa-e-Hind, which is corroborated by the digital

devices (MO-13) to (MO-17) seized from the accused and in the

scrutiny report (D- 166) of the forensic report (D-155) received

from NFSU.

17.22 The investigation disclosed that accused S Barkathulla, (A-

7) associated himself with Manitha Neethi Pasarai (MNP),

predecessor to PFI. He was the District president of PFI in the

year 2014 and he organized PF1 marches / parades to create

insecurity among a section of people on the basis of religion. He

motivated Muslim community youth to attend weapon training

conducted by PFI in the guise of PE classes thereby making

them as hit squads to attack, assault, maim and murder

prominent persons even though they belong to Muslim

community who oppose PFI. He had personally supervised and

conducted weapons training camps where PFI cadres were given

training to attack their intended targets.

17.23 The investigation disclosed that accused Yasar Arafat, (A-

8) is the Zonal Secretary of PFI Madurai Zone which consists of

six districts. Earlier, he was the district president of PFI, Theni

district. He coordinated weapons training in the districts that

come under his zone in the name of PE classes where the

20

participants were taught to attack with knives, swords and petrol

bombs. Further, he created an attack team in Theni district from

the participants who attended the weapons training camp. He

used to select PFI cadres who perform well in the weapons

training classes as instructors who in turn would conduct secret

training sessions in PFI offices and Arivagam, Theni. The training

classes were conducted to achieve their goal to prepare for

waging war against the Government of India and to establish an

Islamic state by the year 2047. To terrorize the Hindu community,

he organized recce of the Hindu leaders' business

establishments. Further, documents seized from his residence

during the search conducted on 22 -09-2022, contain

incriminating materials like primary action plan of units, mohalla

committees, where explanation was given in gruesome detail on

how to attack, where to attack, etc.

17.24 The investigation disclosed that the accused Fayas Ahmed

@ Fayas, (A-9) is the district president of PFI Cuddalore District.

To achieve their larger conspiracy in making India an Islamic

country by the year 2047 by striking terror on a section of people

thereby threatening the unity, integrity, security and sovereignty

of India, he gave speeches in the classes conducted by PFI to

their cadres. He motivated Muslim community youth to attend

weapons training conducted by PFI in the guise of PE classes

thereby making them hit squads to attack, assault, maim and

murder prominent persons even though they belong to Muslim

community and oppose PFI. During Ganesh Chaturthi, he

attempted to instigate PFI cadres to create riots between Hindu

& Muslim with intent to promote enmity between two groups.

18.1 That, the investigation conducted by NIA revealed that A-

1, A-2, A-3, A-4, A-5, A-6, A-7, A-8, A-9, A-13 and others have

been parties to the criminal conspiracy in the matter of

strengthening PFI, recruiting of persons to PFI, imparting weapon

training to its (PFI) members, commission of unlawful acts,

preparatory acts for commission of terrorist acts with the object

of establishing Islamic rule in India by 2047. Investigation

disclosed that Popular Front of India and its office bearers

including the arrested accused persons, A-1 to A-9 and A-13

conspired to wage a war against Government of India by

threatening the unity, integrity, security and sovereignty of India

in order to establish Islamic State in India. To inspire and incite

the cadres of PFI, Islamic wars namely battles of AI Badr and

battle of Uhud were compared with the war that the PFI and its

cadres were to wage against India. The accused persons

intentionally promoted enmity between different groups on

21

grounds of religion, intentionally planting a perceived threat in the

minds of impressionable Muslim youth that they were imperilled

by Kaffirs/non-believers and the Government and the Indian

constitution were scheming against Muslims thereby instigating

and inducing gullible Muslim youth to commit offence against the

people belonging other religions/faith and to commit offence

against the State thereby creating enmity against people of other

religions. Further, the accused persons intended and caused

alarm to the general public/section of the public by publishing

statements in writing thereby inducing to commit offences against

the State/general public tranquility. They recruited new cadres

and organized weapons training including throwing petrol bombs

to the new recruits to strike terror against India and among a

section of people in India. Further, the PFI and its office bearers

including an accused person; A-6 had professed and invited

support to the ideologies of Islamic State and Lashkar-e—Taiba,

both proscribed organizations as per the First Schedule under

UA (P) Act, 1967, in the classes conducted by the PFI to its

cadres.”

15. As stated earlier, the chargesheet has been filed against the

respondents-accused for the offences under Sections 120B, 121A, 12,

153A, 505(1) (b), (c), (2) of IPC and Sections 13,18, 18A, 18B of UAPA,

except the Accused-6, S. Khaja Maideen, who has been additionally

implicated under Section 38 and 39 of UAPA. It may be noted that out

of the alleged offences under UAPA, the offences under Sections 18,

18A and 18B would fall under Chapter-IV, whereas the offences under

Section 38 and 39 would fall under Chapter-VI of the Act. From the

statements of witnesses and the incriminating documents collected

during the course of investigation, as referred to in the charge-sheet, it

is discernible that the PW-A, PW-C, PW-D, PW-E, and witnesses Syed

22

Abutaheer and Mohammed Satik have stated about the activities of PFI

like radicalizing youth for recruitment, Arms training (knife, sword and

use of petrol bombs/inflammable substances) and preparatory act for

commissioning of terrorist activities. Similarly, PW-F has stated about

the PFI’s ideal of an Islamic State and about providing support to ISIS.

The PW-A, PW-B, PW-C, PW-D, PW-H and PW-I have stated about the

conspiracy hatched by the members of the PFI and particularly the role

of A-8 Yasar Arafat for creating an Islamic State by the year 2047

through an armed struggle against the Government of India. From the

relevant extracts of the statements of the protected witnesses and of the

listed witnesses, the role of each of the respondents-accused has been

sought to be made out, which can be tabulated as under:

Accused

No.

Name Relevant statements of

protected and listed witnesses

A-1 A.M. Idris @ Ahamed

Idris

The role and involvement of A-

1 Ahamed Idris is sought to be

culled out from the statements

of LW-68, LW-69, LW-89/PW-C,

LW-93/PW-D, LW-92/PW-F and

PW-114/PW-G.

A-3 Mohammed Abuthahir The role and involvement of A-

3 Mohammed Abuthahir is

sought to be culled out from the

statements of LW-62, LW-

89/PW-C, LW-93/PW-D, LW-

92/PW-F and LW-114/PW-G.

23

A-4 Khalid Mohammed The role and involvement of A-

4 Khalid Mohammed is sought

to be made out from the

statements of LW-68, LW-69,

LW-86/PW-B, LW-89/PW-C,

LW-93/PW-D and LW-92/PW-F.

A-5 Syed Ishaaq The role ad involvement of A-5

Syed Ishaaq is sought to be

made out from the statements

of LW-89/PW-C, LW-93/PW-D,

LW-108/PW-E, LW-92/PW-F

and LW-114/PW-G.

A-6 S. Khaja Maideen The role ad involvement of A-6

S. Khaja Maideen is sought to

be made out from the

statements of LW-89/PW-C,

LW-93/PW-D and LW-92/PW-F.

A-7 Barakathullah The role and involvement of A-

7 Barakathullah is sought to be

made out from the statements

of LW-86/PW-B and LW-

122/PW-H.

A-8 Yasar Arafat The role ad involvement of A-8

Yasar Arafat is sought to be

made out from the statements

of LW-67, LW-68, LW-69, LW-

126/PW-A, LW-89/PW-C, LW-

93/PW-D and LW-108/PW-E.

A-9 Fayaz Ahmed The role ad involvement of A-9

Fayaz Ahmed is sought to be

made out from the statements

of LW-81, LW-82, LW-83 and

LW-88

16. As transpiring from the material on record, the PFI was registered under

the Societies Registration Act, having an organizational set up as

24

contained in its constitution. All the respondents-accused were the

members or office bearers of the said organization at the relevant time.

As alleged in the chargesheet, though the PFI was projecting itself as

an organization fighting for the rights of minorities, Dalits and

marginalized communities, it was pursuing a covert agenda to radicalize

particular section of the society and to work towards undermining the

concept of democracy and integrity of India. The investigation disclosed

that the activities and undeclared objectives of PFI had strong

communal and anti-national agenda to establish an Islamic rule in India

by radicalization of Muslims and communalization of issues. After

recruitment as members of PFI, they were motivated towards violent

terrorist activities by providing training through beginners course and

advanced training courses. During the training courses, physical

education classes were conducted in which members were taught to

attack, assault, maim and murder with bare hands. The training was also

given as to how to use weapons like knives and swords and how to hurl

bombs. It appears that within few days of the arrest of the respondents

on 22.09.2022, the PFI was declared as an “unlawful association” and

was banned by the Government of India under the UAPA. We need not

elaborate on the allegations made by the protected/listed witnesses

25

stating the role and involvement of each of the respondents, who were

either members or the office bearers of the PFI. Suffice it to say that,

there is sufficient material in the form of statements of witnesses and

other incriminating evidence in the form of digital devices, books,

photographs etc. collected during the course of investigation and relied

upon by the appellant as recorded in the chargesheet, to form an opinion

that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusations

against the respondents-accused are prima facie true.

17. As stated in Watali’s case, the material/evidence collated by the

Investigating Agency in reference to the accusation against each of the

accused concerned in the chargesheet would prevail until rebutted,

contradicted and overcome or disproved by other evidence. The

material collated and statements of witnesses recorded also show prima

facie complicity of the respondents-accused in the commission of the

alleged offences, which material/evidence is good and sufficient on its

face to establish the facts constituting the alleged offences, till such

material/evidence is rebutted or contradicted. The Court at the stage of

considering the bail applications of the respondents-accused is merely

required to record a finding on the basis of broad probabilities regarding

26

the involvement of the respondents in the commission of the alleged

offences.

18. In our opinion, the High Court has committed gross error in not

considering the material/evidence in its right and proper perspective and

in recording a perverse finding to the effect that there was no material

to suggest the commission of any offence, which falls under Section 15

of UAPA, and that the prosecution had not produced any material about

the involvement of any of the respondents-accused in any terrorist act

or as a member of a terrorist gang or organization or training terrorism.

Such perverse findings of the High Court deserve to be strongly

deprecated more particularly when the appellant has not alleged the

offence under Section 15 of UAPA either in the FIR or in the chargesheet

against the respondents. The alleged offences are under Section 18,

18A, 18B etc. For the purpose of considering the offence under Section

18, the commission of terrorist act as contemplated in Section 15 of

UAPA is not required to be made out. What Section 18 contemplates is

that whoever conspires or attempts to commit, or advocates, abets,

advises or incites, directly or knowingly facilitates the commission of a

terrorist act or any act preparatory to the commission of a terrorist act

would be punishable under the said provision. Hence, if there is any

27

material or evidence to show that the accused had conspired or

attempted to commit a terrorist act, or committed any act preparatory to

the commission of a terrorist act, such material evidence would be

sufficient to invoke Section 18. For attracting Section 18, the

involvement of the accused in the actual commission of terrorist act as

defined in Section 15 need not be shown. The High Court having

miserably failed to comprehend the correct import of Section 18 read

with the definition of terrorist act as contemplated in Section 15 of UAPA,

in our opinion the High Court has fallen into a patent and manifest error.

19. Though it was sought to be submitted by learned counsel appearing for

the respondents that the material / evidence collected by the

Investigating Agency and statements of witnesses relied upon by the

prosecuting agency is not reliable, the said submission cannot be

accepted. As held by this Court in Watali’s case, the question of

discarding the material or document at the stage of considering the bail

application of an accused, on the ground of being not reliable or

inadmissible in evidence, is not permissible. The Court must look at the

contents of the documents and take such documents into account as it

is and satisfy itself on the basis of broad probabilities regarding the

involvement of the accused in the commission of the alleged offences

28

for recording whether a prima facie case is made out against the

accused.

20. No doubt, in Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb

3

, relied upon by the

learned counsels for the respondents, it has been observed that a

Constitutional court is not strictly bound by the prohibitory provisions of

grant of bail in 1967 Act, and can exercise its constitutional jurisdiction

to release the accused on bail who has been incarcerated for a long

period of time relying upon Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the said

observations may not be applicable to the facts of the present case. In

the said case, this Court did not interfere with the order passed by the

High Court granting bail to the accused in the said case, on the ground

that the said accused had already spent 5 years and 5 months in

custody, and the trial was likely to take long time. So far as the

respondents in the instant appeals are concerned, they are in custody

hardly for one and half years, apart from the fact that all the respondents

are shown to have been involved in previous cases. There are about 8

to 9 previous cases shown in the chargesheet against the respondents

except accused no.1, 4 and 6 who are shown to have been involved in

two cases. Considering the nature and gravity of the alleged offences

3

(2021) 3 SCC 713

29

and considering their criminal antecedents, in our opinion High Court

should not have taken a lenient view, more particularly when there was

sufficient material to show their prima facie involvement in the alleged

offences under the UAPA.

21. Similarly, the decision in Vernon vs. State of Maharashtra and

Another

4

, relied upon by the learned counsels for the respondents also

would be of hardly any help in as much in the said case this Court after

considering allegations made against the accused and long incarnation

of five years, did not think it proper to continue further detention of the

appellants-accused in the said case. In Shoma Kanti Sen vs. State of

Maharashtra and Another

5

, relied upon by the learned counsels for the

respondents, this Court had deemed it proper to release the accused

involved in the offences under the UAPA on bail, having considered the

facts of the case and observing that Section 43(d)(5) of UAPA was not

applicable.

22. In the instant case, we are satisfied from the chargesheet as also the

other material/documents relied upon by the appellant that there are

reasonable grounds for believing that the accusations against the

4

2023 SCC OnLine SC 885

5

(2024) 4 SCALE 709

30

respondents are prima facie true and that the mandate contained in the

proviso to Section 43(D)(5) would be applicable for not releasing the

respondents on bail. Having regard to the seriousness and gravity of the

alleged offences, previous criminal history of the respondents as

mentioned in the charge-sheet, the period of custody undergone by the

respondents being hardly one and half years, the severity of punishment

prescribed for the alleged offences and prima facie material collected

during the course of investigation, the impugned order passed by the

High Court cannot be sustained. We are conscious of the legal position

that we should be slow in interfering with the order when the bail has

been granted by the High Court, however it is equally well settled that if

such order of granting bail is found to be illegal and perverse, it must be

set aside.

23. This Court has often interpreted the counter terrorism enactments to

strike a balance between the civil liberties of the accused, human rights

of the victims and compelling interest of the state. It cannot be denied

that National security is always of paramount importance and any act in

aid to any terrorist act – violent or non-violent is liable to be restricted.

The UAPA is one of such Acts which has been enacted to provide for

effective prevention of certain unlawful activities of individuals and

31

associations, and to deal with terrorist activities, as also to impose

reasonable restrictions on the civil liberties of the persons in the interest

of sovereignty and integrity of India.

24. In that view of the matter, the impugned order passed by the High Court

is set aside. The respondents shall forthwith surrender themselves

before the appellant-NIA. Since, the chargesheet has already been

submitted before the Special Court, it is directed that the Special Court

shall proceed with the trial as expeditiously as possible and in

accordance with law, without being influenced by any of the

observations made by this Court in this order.

25. The appeals are allowed accordingly.

……………………………………J .

[BELA M. TRIVEDI]

…………….. ……………………. J.

[PANKAJ MITHAL]

NEW DELHI;

MAY 22

nd

, 2024.