Bombay High Court
MOHD. IQBAL IBRAHIM KHANversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The appellant is entitled to bail; the appeal is allowed and the lower court’s order denying bail is set aside.
Summary
The appellant, Mohd Iqbal Ibrahim Khan, was arrested in September 2022 and charged under the UAPA and several IPC provisions for alleged involvement with the Popular Front of India (PFI). He sought bail pending trial, arguing that the evidence—primarily statements and videos—did not establish any offence and that the trial would be protracted given the 255 witnesses listed. The prosecution relied on seized phone data, including a video of petrol bomb making, to argue the appellant’s active role. The Court examined the witness statements, found them largely innocuous, and held that the stringent bail bar under Section 43D of the UAPA did not apply as the charge was under Section 13(1)(b). Relying on Supreme Court precedents granting bail to similar PFI members, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the lower court’s denial, and granted bail with conditions.
Issues considered
- The applicability of the bail bar under Section 43D of the UAPA to the appellant’s charge under Section 13(1)(b).
- Whether the material evidence disclosed establishes the ingredients of the offences charged.
- Whether the length of the trial and number of witnesses justify granting bail.
- Whether prior Supreme Court decisions on similar PFI cases are binding on this matter.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 109, 116, 120-B, 121-A, 153-A, 201
- National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 — s. 21(4)
- Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 — s. 13(1)(b), 43D
Subjects
- bail
- UAPA
- PFI
- National Investigation Agency Act
- Section 43D
- criminal procedure
- evidence
- trial delay
Judgment
:1: 901-APEAL-649-26.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.649 OF 2026
Mohd. Iqbal Ibrahim Khan …..Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra .….Respondent
-----
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.2195 OF 2026
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.649 OF 2026
-----
Ms. Payoshi Roy, Advocate a/w. Ulkesh Gangurde, Palak Dubey
for the Appellant.
Ms. Gauri S. Rao, APP for the Respondent-State.
API Archana Kshirsagar and ASI Kalsekar, ATS Kalachowki,
Mumbai are present in Court.
-----
CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL &
RANJITSINHA RAJA BHONSALE, JJ.
DATE : 20th AUGUST, 2026
P.C. :
1. The Appellant has challenged the order dated
21.4.2026 passed by the learned Special Judge for the cases
under NIA & UAPA, City Civil and Sessions Court, Greater
Mumbai below Exhibit-62 in Special Case No.206/2023. In
1 of 14
Deshmane(PS)
:2: 901-APEAL-649-26.odt
effect, the Appellant is seeking his release on bail during
pendency of the said trial. The Appellant is the original
accused No.3. The Appeal is filed under Section 21(4) of the
National Investigation Agency Act, 2008. The Appellant was
arrested on 22.9.2022 and till today he is in custody.
2. Heard Ms. Payoshi Roy, learned counsel for the
Appellant and Ms. Gauri Rao, learned APP for the Respondent-
State.
3. The FIR in this case was lodged at Kalachowky
police station, Mumbai on 21.9.2022 vide C.R. No.19/2022
under Sections 120-B, 121-A, 153-A of IPC and under Section
13(1)(b) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (for
short, ‘UAPA’). The investigation was taken over by the ATS,
Mumbai. They filed a report on 2.2.2023. The said report was
filed against the Appellant and four others under Section 13(1)
(b) of UAPA, 1967 and under Sections 120-B, 120-A, 153-A,
201, 109, 116 of IPC.
4. The charges are framed on 12.3.2026 under the
same Sections. However, till today no witness is examined. In
2 of 14
:3: 901-APEAL-649-26.odt
the charge-sheet 255 witnesses are cited. We are informed by
the learned APP that the prosecuting agency intends to
examine at least 90 witnesses. Thus, it is quite clear that the
trial is not likely to get over within a reasonable time in future.
5. In this background, we have heard the learned
counsel for the parties for consideration of grant of bail to the
Appellant. The prosecution story is mentioned in the report
filed by the investigating agency as well as in the FIR. The FIR
was lodged by API Rohit Raviraj Rasam attached to ATS,
Kalachowky, Mumbai. It is mentioned in the FIR that he
received a secret information that the Popular Front of India
(PFI) was an organization and their members were planning to
revolt against the Government of India. For that purpose they
had entered into conspiracy. They had arranged various
programmes at Dharavi, Kurla, Chembur, Trombay, Nerul,
Panvel, Mumbra, Thane and Vashi Naka between February,
2022 to June, 2022. Their object was to control the majority
population and to spread hatred within their own religion
against the other religion. On these allegations, the FIR is
lodged. The Appellant was mentioned as one of the accused,
3 of 14
:4: 901-APEAL-649-26.odt
being member of the said organization.
6. The investigation was carried out, and as
mentioned earlier, it was taken over by the ATS, Mumbai.
7. As far as the Appellant is concerned, the report
mentions certain allegations against him. During investigation,
his mobile phone and other devices were seized. There were
various photographs and video clippings. Those videos and
photographs showed that he was giving training to other
members and there were certain objectionable photographs
and video clippings. This is the gist of allegations against him.
8. Learned counsel for the Appellant invited our
attention to various statements recorded during the
investigation. She submitted that in none of these statements,
there is any indication that the Appellant has committed any
of the offences alleged against him. She submitted that the PFI
was banned on 27.9.2022. Therefore, the Appellant being a
member of that organization, before that date, is not an
offence. Even otherwise, his activities as a member of PFI do
not attract ingredients of any of the offences alleged against
4 of 14
:5: 901-APEAL-649-26.odt
him. She submitted that at the highest the allegations against
him show that he was making efforts to increase the number
of members for PFI. He was giving physical training and he
was making efforts to take an office for the PFI. The video
clippings and the photographs are completely innocuous. In
any case, at the highest, it can be said that he had received
these photographs and video clippings on his mobile phone and
there is nothing to show that he had misused them and had
forwarded them to instigate others.
9. Learned counsel for the Appellant relied upon
various orders passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the
Division Benches of this Court in the past in respect of some of
the members of PFI in other cases. She submitted that similar
approach be taken for consideration of bail to the present
Appellant. She submitted that the learned Judge has
erroneously referred to Section 15 of the UAPA to deny bail
to the Appellant by invoking bar under Section 43D of the
UAPA. She submitted that the learned Judge’s observations
were erroneous on facts and, therefore, the entire reasoning
was based on incorrect material. On this ground also the
5 of 14
:6: 901-APEAL-649-26.odt
impugned order is required to be set aside.
10. Learned APP, on the other hand, submitted that the
investigating agency has collected the CDR of the Appellant’s
communication with the co-accused between the period of
1.10.2021 to 22.9.2022. In one of the objectionable videos,
demonstration of making the petrol bombs was found. Said
video is dangerous and it shows the nature of the activities
which the Appellant had undertaken. She submitted that the
evidence collected during the investigation clearly shows that
the Appellant was an active member of PFI and had taken part
in their activities which were undertaken by the said
organization.
11. We have considered these submissions. The
relevant and material statements are annexed to this Appeal.
There is no dispute that this is the main material against the
Appellant based on which he is being prosecuted. Since the
trial is yet to begin, we are not making any detailed
observations regarding this material. However, some reference
needs to be made to these statements. The names of those
6 of 14
:7: 901-APEAL-649-26.odt
witnesses are masked for security purpose. Therefore, we are
referring to those statements by the page numbers of this
Appeal.
12. Those statements are as follows :
i. The statement of witness at page No.383. Said witness
was working in a Bank from February, 2022 as a
Relationship Manager. He had attempted to get a job in
Dubai but he had failed to get a job. He has stated that
he knew the Appellant and other co-accused. He has
mainly stated about one Asif Adhikari. There is hardly
any statement showing the Appellant’s involvement.
Therefore, this statement is innocuous as far as the
Appellant is concerned.
ii. The statement of witness at page No.407. This witness
became a member of PFI in 2017. He had completed the
beginner’s course of the organization in October, 2017.
He knew the present Appellant. He has not specifically
referred to any particular activity conducted by the
Appellant, but he showed awareness that the Appellant
7 of 14
:8: 901-APEAL-649-26.odt
was arrested on 22.9.2022.
iii. The statement of witness at page No.432. He had stated
that during COVID period in the year 2022 he and his
associates were getting oxygen cylinders and were
providing it to the needy people at concessional rate. The
Appellant had contacted him and had made enquiries
about the cylinders. Through this incident their
acquaintance grew. The Appellant informed him about
the PFI and told him to become a member. The Appellant
used to call him and others for meeting of PFI at Cheeta
Camp. According to this witness, the Appellant was in-
charge of PFI for Mumbai. On one occasion, the
Appellant had given him banners, posters and handbills
mentioning “Healthy People, Healthy Nation”. In 2022,
the Appellant had told him that they should participate in
the protest against E.D.. Accordingly, this witness had
taken part in the protest but at that time the Appellant
himself had not attended the protest. Significantly this
witness has further stated that this witness had expressed
his displeasure about girls from their community
8 of 14
:9: 901-APEAL-649-26.odt
contracting inter-faith marriages. However at that time
the Appellant had told him that it was not their subject
and the Appellant had not responded.
The statement of this witness in fact supports
the Appellant’s case that he was not indulging in
dangerous activities.
iv. The statement of witness at page No.470. This witness
has spoken about the fact that the Appellant was a
member of PFI and that he had started an office of PFI
on rental basis in this witness’s place.
v. The statement of witness at page No.474. This witness
has stated about the Appellant being a member of PFI.
vi. The statement of witness at page No.475. This witness
has stated about the physical training conducted by the
Appellant. He had helped the Appellant in getting more
members for PFI. Similar are the statements of witnesses
at page Nos.479, 482, 484, 513, 475, 584. In fact the
witness at Page No.513 has stated that the Appellant was
distributing foodgrains and books to the needy people.
9 of 14
: 10 : 901-APEAL-649-26.odt
All these statements are innocuous and at
the highest they show that the Appellant was a member
of PFI. He had started an office of PFI and was getting
members for PFI. Apart from that, according to these
statements, he was conducting physical training
programme and was also taking part in social activities
and was helping the needy people.
13. Therefore, all these statements do not make out
any ingredients of any offence charged against him. Learned
counsel invited our attention to various video clippings and
photographs which were found on his devices. Out of them,
the most significant was a video in respect of petrol bombs.
However, learned counsel for the Appellant pointed out that
the said video was found in his phone but there is nothing to
show that he has forwarded it to anybody else or had
instigated anyone else to use that technique.
14. The other video screenshot shows the physical
training, karate and other demonstrations. One video shows
that one religious leader was making some speech but the
10 of 14
: 11 : 901-APEAL-649-26.odt
Appellant had not forwarded that speech to anyone else. Thus,
we find that there is hardly any material fulfilling the
ingredients of the serious allegations made against the
Appellant.
15. In this background, learned counsel for the
Appellant has rightly relied on the orders passed by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in respect of the accused who were similarly
placed and who were members of PFI in different cases. Those
orders are as follows :
i. Unais Umar Khaiyyam Patel Vs. The Anti Terrorism Squad &
Another1. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed thus :
“There are three factors in favour of the appellant
which make out a case for grant of bail : (1) The
limited role ascribed to him; (2) He has undergone
incarceration for a period of 2 years and 2 months and
190 witnesses are to be examined; and (3) as stated
earlier, stringent conditions for bail under Section
43(D)(5) of the 1967 Act are not applicable in this
case. Therefore, the appellant is entitled to be enlarged
on bail, pending the trial.”
1 Passed on 22.11.2024 in Criminal Appeal No.4722/2024.
11 of 14
: 12 : 901-APEAL-649-26.odt
ii. Razi Ahmed Khan Vs. The State of Maharashtra 2. The
Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed thus :
“We have perused the report of the Regional Forensic
Science Laboratory, Nasik, Maharashtra and the text of
the conversation attributed to the appellant. Prima
facie, we do not find anything incriminating in the
conversation. There are 190 prosecution witnesses to
be examined and the appellant has undergone
incarceration for a period of about 2 years. In this case,
the stringent conditions imposed by Section 43(D)(5)
of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (for
short, "the 1967 Act") will not apply as the offence
alleged against the appellant under the 1967 Act is
only under Section 13(1)(b). Therefore, the appellant
deserves to be enlarged on bail on the same stringent
conditions on which a co-accused - Unais Umar
Khaiyyam Patel was released in Criminal Appeal
No.4722 of 2024.”
16. Thus, from the above discussion we are convinced
that the Appellant deserves to be released on bail. As
mentioned by the learned APP, there are 255 witnesses cited in
the report out of which at least 90 witnesses are proposed to be
examined. The trial is not likely to get over soon. The bar
under Section 43D of the UAPA is not attracted as the charge
2 Passed on 2.12.2024 in Criminal Appeal No.4940/2024
12 of 14
: 13 : 901-APEAL-649-26.odt
is not framed under Chapter IV or Chapter VI of the UAPA.
17. In this view of the matter, the Appellant deserves to
be released on bail, on certain conditions. Hence, the following
order:
:: O R D E R ::
i. The Appeal is allowed.
ii. The impugned order dated 21.4.2026 passed by the
Special Judge for the cases under NIA & UAPA, City
Civil and Sessions Court, Greater Mumbai below
Exhibit-62 in Special Case No.206/2023, is set aside.
iii. The Appellant is directed to be released on bail in
connection with Special Case No.206/2023 before
the Special Judge for the cases under NIA & UAPA,
City Civil and Sessions Court, Greater Mumbai
arising out of C.R. No.19/2022 registered with ATS
Kalachowky, Mumbai on his executing a PR bond in
the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only)
with one or two sureties in the like amount; subject to
following conditions :
13 of 14
: 14 : 901-APEAL-649-26.odt
I. The Appellant shall deposit his passport, if any, with
the investigating agency before the Appellant is
released on bail.
II. The Appellant shall report to the ATS, Kalachowky,
Mumbai on every alternate Saturday between 4.00
p.m. to 5.00 p.m..
III. The Appellant shall not tamper with the evidence
and shall not influence any witness.
IV. The Appellant shall remain present on all the dates
before the trial Court and shall cooperate in
expeditious disposal of the trial.
iv. The Appeal is disposed of accordingly. In view of
disposal of the Appeal, nothing survives in pending
Interim Application No.2195/2026 and it is also
disposed of.
(RANJITSINHA RAJA BHONSALE, J.) (SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)
Deshmane (PS)
Digitally signed
by
PRADIPKUMAR
PRADIPKUMAR PRAKASHRAO
PRAKASHRAO DESHMANE
DESHMANE
Date:
2026.08.25
15:09:37 +0530
14 of 14
Checking your session…