Court underscores gravity of charges under UA (P) Act, rejects bail plea citing strong prima facie case and recent Supreme Court precedents on bail and speedy trial rights.
The Kerala High Court recently dismissed the bail applications of Abdul Kader and Firoz, the 19th and 20th accused in a high-profile terrorism case linked to the Popular Front of India (PFI). The case, registered as S.C.No.2 of 2023 on the file of the Special Court for the Trial of NIA Cases, Ernakulam, involves serious allegations of conspiracy, terrorist acts, and murder under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UA (P) Act), among other statutes.
The appellants were arrested in April 2022 in connection with Crime No.318 of 2022 of Palakkad Town South Police Station, concerning the brutal murder of S.K. Sreenivasan. The National Investigation Agency (NIA) took over the investigation, subsequently filing a detailed chargesheet against multiple accused, including the appellants, accusing them of conspiring to establish an Islamic rule in India by 2047 through violent acts targeted at specific community leaders.
The court meticulously examined the facts, noting that the PFI, banned as an unlawful association under the UA (P) Act, had a structured organization with wings dedicated to intelligence gathering, arms training, and execution of violent acts. The appellants were specifically charged with active involvement in conspiracy meetings, arms training, and facilitating the murder of Sreenivasan. The prosecution presented substantial prima facie material, including CCTV footage, DNA evidence linking the accused to the crime scene, witness statements, and recovery of weapons and incriminating documents.
Addressing the appellants' contention regarding the non-communication of written grounds of arrest, the court referred to recent Supreme Court judgments, including Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India (2024) and Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra (2026). It held that while furnishing written grounds of arrest is now mandatory "henceforth," the appellants' arrests predated this requirement and were therefore not invalidated on this ground. The court emphasized that oral communication of grounds, coupled with timely production before the court, sufficed at the time.
The bench further deliberated on the stringent bail provisions under Section 43-D(5) of the UA (P) Act, which disallow bail if the court finds reasonable grounds to believe the accusations are prima facie true. After scrutinizing the voluminous evidence, the court concurred with the Special Court's view that the appellants had an active role in the terrorist conspiracy and the murder, and that the prima facie case against them was strong.
On the issue of parity, the court rejected the appellants' argument that bail granted to other accused should extend to them, stressing that bail considerations must focus on the specific role and involvement of each accused. The appellants were found to have a more direct and incriminating connection to the offense, including DNA evidence and participation in conspiracy meetings, distinguishing their cases from those granted bail.
Regarding the appellants' claim of prolonged incarceration and delay in trial, the court reviewed authoritative Supreme Court rulings such as Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb (2021), Athar Parwez v. Union of India (2024), and Syed Iftikhar Andrabi v. National Investigation Agency (2026). These judgments recognize the constitutional right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution and allow bail in cases of undue delay and prolonged custody, even under stringent special laws, balancing individual liberty with national security concerns.
However, the court noted that the appellants had undergone approximately four years and four months of custody, which, considering the gravity of the offenses (including punishments up to life imprisonment or death under Sections 302 IPC and 16 UA (P) Act), did not warrant bail on delay grounds. Furthermore, the court observed that the trial proceedings had been delayed partly due to interim orders from the Supreme Court but that steps were underway, including the establishment of exclusive NIA Special Courts in Ernakulam, to expedite the trial.
In conclusion, the Kerala High Court dismissed the criminal appeal, affirming the denial of bail to Abdul Kader and Firoz. The judgment reiterates the principle that while personal liberty is a fundamental right, it must be balanced against the collective interests of society and national security, especially in cases involving terrorism and unlawful activities. The court underscored that the statutory restrictions under the UA (P) Act do not exclude the constitutional power of courts to grant bail in exceptional circumstances, but the present case does not meet such a threshold.
Bottom Line:
Bail under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UA (P) Act), especially under Section 43-D(5), is subject to stringent conditions; however, constitutional courts retain the power to grant bail on grounds of prolonged incarceration and unreasonable delay in trial, balancing the rights of accused and interests of society.
Statutory provision(s): Indian Penal Code (Sections 120B, 34, 118, 119, 109, 115, 143, 144, 147, 148, 449, 341, 201, 212, 302, 153A, 149), Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (Sections 3, 7, 13, 15, 16, 18, 20, 43-D(5)), Religious Institutions (Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1988 (Sections 3, 7), National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (Section 21), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Section 439), Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (Section 19), Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Section 47), Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.
Abdul Kader v. Union of India, (Kerala)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2973763
