UNION OF INDIA REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY CHENNAI BRANCHversusBARAKATHULLAH ETC.

                [2024] 5 S.C.R. 1011 : 2024 INSC 452

   Union of India Rep. by The Inspector of Police National
           Investigation Agency Chennai Branch
                             v.
                     Barakathullah etc.
                (Criminal Appeal Nos. 2715 - 2719 of 2024)
                                 22 May 2024
              [Bela M. Trivedi* and Pankaj Mithal, JJ.]

                           Issue for Consideration
       The respondents-accused were arrested for the alleged 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. The High Court released the respondents on bail subject to
       the conditions. 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.

                                  Headnotes†
       Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1957 – ss. 13, 17, 18, 18(B),
       38, 39 and 43D – National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 – An
       FIR came to be registered on 19.09.2022 against the present
       respondents and other members and office bearers of PFI for
       the offences u/ss. 120(b), 153(A), 153(AA) of IPC and ss. 13,
       17, 18, 18(B), 38 and 39 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention)
       Act, 1957 – The respondents-accused were arrested for the
       alleged offences – They filed their respective bail applications
       before the Special Court under the National Investigation
       Agency Act, 2008 (Sessions Court for Exclusive Trial of Bomb
       Blast Cases) and the same were dismissed – However, the
       High Court released the respondents on bail subject to the
       conditions – Correctness:
       Held: 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


* Author
1012                                                            [2024] 5 S.C.R.

                      Digital Supreme Court Reports


    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 –
    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 – There is no need to elaborate on the allegations made by
    the protected/listed witnesses 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 – 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 the involvement of the respondents
    in the commission of the alleged offences – The High Court has
    committed gross error in not considering the material/evidence
    in its right and proper perspective – 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 – In the instant case, this Court is 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 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 – Thus, the impugned order passed by the High Court
    is set aside and respondents directed to surrender themselves
    before the appellant-NIA. [Paras 13, 16, 17, 18, 22]
[2024] 5 S.C.R.                                                          1013

 Union of India Rep. by The Inspector of Police National Investigation
            Agency Chennai Branch v. Barakathullah etc.

                             Case Law Cited
     National Investigation Agency v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali
     [2019] 5 SCR 1060 : (2019) 5 SCC 1; Gurwinder Singh v. State
     of Punjab and Another [2024] 2 SCR 134 : (2024) SCC OnLine
     SC 109 – relied on.
     Vernon v. State of Maharashtra and Another [2023] 10 SCR 867 :
     2023 SCC OnLine SC 885; Shoma Kanti Sen v. State of
     Maharashtra and Another [2024] 4 SCR 270 : (2024) 4 SCALE
     709 – held inapplicable.
     K. Veeraswami v. Union of India and Others [1991] 3 SCR 189 :
     (1991) 3 SCC 655; Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb [2021] 1 SCR 443 :
     (2021) 3 SCC 713 – referred to.
                               List of Acts
     Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1957; National Investigation
     Agency Act, 2008; Penal Code, 1860; Code of Criminal Procedure,
     1973.
                            List of Keywords
     Bail; Application for bail; Investigation; Incriminating evidence;
     Sufficient material; Reasonable grounds for believing the
     accusations; Prima facie true; Proviso to Section 43(D)(5) of
     Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1957; Assessment of the
     material/evidence presented by the investigating authority;
     Communal and anti-national agenda; Violent terrorist activities;
     Section 18 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1957; Section
     15 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1957.
                           Case Arising From
     CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal Nos.
     2715-2719 of 2024
     From the Judgment and Order dated 19.10.2023 of the High Court
     of Judicature at Madras in CRLA Nos. 98, 114 and 116 of 2023 and
     CRLMP Nos. 11595 and 8094 of 2023
                        Appearances for Parties
     Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General, Suryaprakash V Raju, A.S.G., Rajat
     Nair, Ms. Srishti Mishra, Mrs. Satvika Thakur, Raman Yadav, Mrs.
     Sakshi Kakkar, Sarthak Karol, Annam Venkatesh, Arvind Kumar
     Sharma, Advs. for the Appellant.
1014                                                        [2024] 5 S.C.R.

                      Digital Supreme Court Reports


     Ms. Mukta Gupta, Ms. Rebecca John, Sr. Advs., S. Balakrishnan,
     Rizwan Ahmad, A. Nowfal, Nitya Gupta, Javed R Shaikh, Abdul
     Shukoor, Shereef Ka, Ms. Anushka Baruah, Devansh A. Mohta, A.
     Selvin Raja, A. Raja Mohamed, V. S. Banu, Khalid Akthar, Advs. for
     the Respondents.
                Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                Judgment
     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 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 16th 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 Special Court after considering the case diary, the documents
     and material produced before it, and after having been satisfied about
[2024] 5 S.C.R.                                                        1015

 Union of India Rep. by The Inspector of Police National Investigation
            Agency Chennai Branch v. Barakathullah etc.

     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 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 the co-accused in
1016                                                          [2024] 5 S.C.R.

                           Digital Supreme Court Reports


      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 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
      Another1 which has relied upon the earlier decision in National



1    [2024] 2 SCR 134 : (2024) SCC OnLine SC 109
[2024] 5 S.C.R.                                                        1017

    Union of India Rep. by The Inspector of Police National Investigation
               Agency Chennai Branch v. Barakathullah etc.

       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 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 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.


2     [2019] 5 SCR 1060 : (2019) 5 SCC 1
1018                                                          [2024] 5 S.C.R.

                      Digital Supreme Court Reports


     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 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 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)……
[2024] 5 S.C.R.                                                          1019

 Union of India Rep. by The Inspector of Police National Investigation
            Agency Chennai Branch v. Barakathullah etc.

           (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:
           “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
1020                                                       [2024] 5 S.C.R.

                    Digital Supreme Court Reports


          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 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
[2024] 5 S.C.R.                                                              1021

 Union of India Rep. by The Inspector of Police National Investigation
            Agency Chennai Branch v. Barakathullah etc.

           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 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.
1022                                                   [2024] 5 S.C.R.

                 Digital Supreme Court Reports


        •   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
[2024] 5 S.C.R.                                                               1023

    Union of India Rep. by The Inspector of Police National Investigation
               Agency Chennai Branch v. Barakathullah etc.

                      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.
               •      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.
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:


*   K. Veeraswami vs. Union of India and Others (1991) 3 SCC 655
1024                                                      [2024] 5 S.C.R.

                   Digital Supreme Court Reports


        “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 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
[2024] 5 S.C.R.                                                             1025

 Union of India Rep. by The Inspector of Police National Investigation
            Agency Chennai Branch v. Barakathullah etc.

           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
1026                                                      [2024] 5 S.C.R.

                   Digital Supreme Court Reports


        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.
        17.15 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
[2024] 5 S.C.R.                                                          1027

 Union of India Rep. by The Inspector of Police National Investigation
            Agency Chennai Branch v. Barakathullah etc.

           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 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
1028                                                      [2024] 5 S.C.R.

                   Digital Supreme Court Reports


        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 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
[2024] 5 S.C.R.                                                            1029

 Union of India Rep. by The Inspector of Police National Investigation
            Agency Chennai Branch v. Barakathullah etc.

           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 participants were taught to attack
1030                                                     [2024] 5 S.C.R.

                  Digital Supreme Court Reports


        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
[2024] 5 S.C.R.                                                         1031

 Union of India Rep. by The Inspector of Police National Investigation
            Agency Chennai Branch v. Barakathullah etc.

           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 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
1032                                                       [2024] 5 S.C.R.

                    Digital Supreme Court Reports


    investigation, as referred to in the charge-sheet, it is discernible
    that the PW-A, PW-C, PW-D, PW-E, and witnesses Syed 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 Name           Relevant statements of protected and listed
        No.                    witnesses
        A-1     A.M. Idris @   The role and involvement of A-1 Ahamed
                Ahamed Idris   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       The role and involvement of A-3 Mohammed
                Abuthahir      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.
        A-4     Khalid         The role and involvement of A-4 Khalid
                Mohammed       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       The role ad involvement of A-6 S. Khaja
                Maideen        Maideen is sought to be made out from the
                               statements of LW-89/PW-C, LW-93/PW-D
                               and LW-92/PW-F.
[2024] 5 S.C.R.                                                          1033

 Union of India Rep. by The Inspector of Police National Investigation
            Agency Chennai Branch v. Barakathullah etc.


      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         The role ad involvement of A-9 Fayaz Ahmed
                    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 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 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
1034                                                        [2024] 5 S.C.R.

                     Digital Supreme Court Reports


     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 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 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
[2024] 5 S.C.R.                                                        1035

    Union of India Rep. by The Inspector of Police National Investigation
               Agency Chennai Branch v. Barakathullah etc.

       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 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 and


3     (2021) 3 SCC 713
1036                                                         [2024] 5 S.C.R.

                          Digital Supreme Court Reports


     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
    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


4   [2023] 10 SCR 867 : 2023 SCC OnLine SC 885
5   [2024] 4 SCR 270 : (2024) 4 SCALE 709
[2024] 5 S.C.R.                                                        1037

 Union of India Rep. by The Inspector of Police National Investigation
            Agency Chennai Branch v. Barakathullah etc.

     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 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.

     Result of the case: Appeals allowed.



     †
         Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey