SC grants bail in IPC and UAPA case citing lack of evidence for terrorist activities or conspiracy charges

SC allowed bail appeal under IPC and UAPA charges related to PFI activities. Court found charge sheet lacked specific material showing appellant's participation in unlawful activities or terrorist acts. No evidence of conspiracy, advocacy, or facilitation of terrorist activities through premises rental. Court determined insufficient grounds to establish prima facie case under UAPA Section 43D(5). Appellant directed to be enlarged on bail with conditions set by Special Court within seven days.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Prosecution of the appellant under IPC and UAPA.
2. Rejection of bail by the Special Court and High Court.
3. Allegations linking the appellant to the activities of PFI.
4. Examination of evidence and statements, including CCTV footage and witness testimonies.
5. Application of Section 43D(5) of UAPA regarding bail.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Prosecution of the appellant under IPC and UAPA:
The appellant is being prosecuted for offences under Sections 121, 121A, and 122 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 13, 18, 18A, and 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA). A charge sheet was filed on 7th January 2023, showing the appellant as accused no.2. The appellant's bail application was rejected by the Special Court under UAPA and subsequently by the High Court.

2. Rejection of bail by the Special Court and High Court:
The appellant's bail application was rejected by the Special Court and the High Court. The High Court granted bail to a co-accused but rejected the appellant's prayer for bail. The appellant's counsel argued that there was no material linking the appellant to the offences under UAPA, and the appellant's case satisfied the tests laid down by Section 43D(5) of UAPA, as there were no reasonable grounds for believing the accusations against the appellant were prima facie true.

3. Allegations linking the appellant to the activities of PFI:
The prosecution alleged that the appellant's wife owned Ahmad Palace, and the appellant clandestinely rented the first floor to accused no.1, Athar Parwez, for activities related to the Popular Front of India (PFI). The appellant allegedly attended a meeting-cum-training on 29th May 2022, where subjects such as the expansion of PFI, training of PFI members, and plans for Muslim empowerment were discussed. The appellant was also accused of tampering with evidence by shifting items from the first floor before a police raid on 11th July 2022.

4. Examination of evidence and statements, including CCTV footage and witness testimonies:
The prosecution relied on statements from protected witnesses and CCTV footage showing the appellant and accused no.1 shifting items from the first floor of Ahmad Palace. However, the appellant's counsel argued that the appellant installed CCTV cameras, which would be unlikely if he were involved in objectionable activities. The charge sheet mentioned the recovery of incriminating documents during the raid, but there was no specific recovery from the appellant. The statement of protected witness Z, as reproduced in the charge sheet, was found to be distorted and did not match the actual statement.

5. Application of Section 43D(5) of UAPA regarding bail:
Section 43D(5) of UAPA states that an accused shall not be released on bail if there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusations are prima facie true. The Court referred to the case of National Investigation Agency v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali, which laid down guidelines for applying the bail limitations under UAPA. The Court held that the material on record did not show that the appellant took part in or committed unlawful activities or conspired to commit terrorist acts. The appellant's son conducted the negotiations for renting the first floor, and there was no material to show that the appellant knowingly facilitated terrorist activities.

Conclusion:
The Court concluded that there were no reasonable grounds for believing that the accusations against the appellant were prima facie true. The Special Court and the High Court did not consider the material in the charge sheet objectively. The Court emphasized that "bail is the rule and jail is an exception" and granted bail to the appellant. The impugned orders were set aside, and the appellant was directed to be enlarged on bail on terms and conditions to be fixed by the Special Court. The findings were limited to the appellant's case and would not affect the trial or the cases of the co-accused.

---