Court confirms prima facie evidence against Ashraf Moulavi, citing national security concerns and rejects bail plea despite prolonged incarceration.
In a significant judgment delivered on August 21, 2026, the Kerala High Court (Division Bench) dismissed the criminal appeal filed by Ashraf @ Ashraf Moulavi, the National Leader of the Popular Front of India (PFI), challenging the denial of his bail by the Special Court for the Trial of National Investigation Agency (NIA) Cases in Ernakulam. The appellant is accused in a terror conspiracy case linked to the brutal murder of Srinivasan, a Hindu community leader, in Palakkad in 2022.
The case originated from Crime No.318/2022 registered at Palakkad Town South Police Station, where it was alleged that PFI, declared an unlawful association by the Government of India in September 2022, orchestrated a conspiracy to create terror and communal disharmony by targeting leaders of the Hindu community. The investigation, later taken over by the NIA, revealed that the PFI had established organizational wings, including a ‘Reporters Wing’ for intelligence gathering and a ‘Service Wing/Hit Teams’ for executing targeted killings. The accused were also alleged to have provided arms training and facilitated recruitment to terrorist outfits such as ISIS.
Ashraf Moulavi, the 2nd accused in the Special Court case, was arrested on September 22, 2022. His bail application was earlier dismissed by the Special Court in December 2023 and subsequently upheld by the Kerala High Court and the Supreme Court. The present appeal reiterated his plea for bail on grounds of prolonged incarceration exceeding three years and eight months, and the alleged non-compliance with the constitutional mandate of furnishing written grounds of arrest.
The Division Bench, comprising Justices Anil K. Narendran and Muralee Krishna S., meticulously examined the legal and factual matrix, including the recent precedents on communication of grounds of arrest under Article 22(1) of the Constitution. It was observed that the landmark Supreme Court judgment in Pankaj Bansal (2024) requiring written communication of grounds of arrest is prospective and does not apply retrospectively to arrests made before October 3, 2023. Since Ashraf was arrested in 2022, the court held that non-furnishing of written grounds of arrest did not vitiate his arrest.
On the substantive issue of bail under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UA (P) Act), the court underscored the stringent statutory bar under Section 43-D(5), which prohibits bail if reasonable grounds exist to believe the accusation is prima facie true. The evidence and materials, including digital devices, witness statements, and incriminating documents, were found sufficient to establish prima facie the appellant's role as a kingpin in the conspiracy to commit terrorist acts to establish an Islamic rule in India by 2047.
The court rejected the appellant's claim for parity in bail despite co-accused with similar charges having been granted bail, emphasizing that parity must be assessed based on the role and position of the accused. Ashraf's leadership and active involvement in arms training, recruitment, and conspiracy to murder were deemed to disqualify him from bail.
Regarding the plea based on prolonged incarceration and delay in trial, the court referred to authoritative Supreme Court decisions, including K.A. Najeeb (2021) and Syed Iftikhar Andrabi (2026), which allow constitutional courts to grant bail notwithstanding statutory embargo if the trial is unlikely to conclude within a reasonable time and the period of custody has exceeded a substantial part of the sentence. However, the court found that Ashraf's incarceration period did not meet this threshold considering the gravity of offences punishable by death or life imprisonment. Further, the court noted recent steps by the Government of Kerala to establish exclusive NIA Special Courts to ensure speedy trial.
The judgment reiterates the delicate balance courts must maintain between safeguarding individual liberty and protecting national security and community interests. It affirms that bail is the rule and jail the exception, even under stringent laws like the UA (P) Act, but the constitutional rights of undertrials must prevail in cases of undue delay and prolonged detention.
Consequently, the Kerala High Court upheld the Special Court’s order dated February 20, 2026, dismissing Ashraf Moulavi’s bail application, thereby keeping the accused in judicial custody pending trial.
Bottom Line:
Prima facie materials against accused under UA (P) Act disentitle him from bail - Prolonged incarceration and trial delay do not automatically entitle bail under statutory restrictions but constitutional right to speedy trial may override bar.
Statutory provision(s): Article 22(1) Constitution of India, Sections 120B, 302, 153A IPC, Sections 13, 18, 18A, 18B, 20, 38, 39, 43-D(5) UA (P) Act 1967, Section 19 PML Act 2002, Section 439 CrPC, Sections 47, 193, 193 BNSS 2023
Ashraf @ Asharaf Moulavi v. Union of India, (Kerala)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2968620
