Delhi High Court: In the present case, an appeal filed by the appellant (‘accused’) under Section 21 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (‘NIA Act’) assailing the impugned judgment dated 10-05-2023. As per the impugned judgment, the accused’s application for seeking grant of regular bail for offences registered under Section 1201 of the Penal Code, 1860 and Section 17/18/18B of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (‘UAPA’), was dismissed.
The Division Bench of Prathiba M. Singh* and Dharmesh Sharma, JJ., stated that while speedy trial and liberty of an individual were of utmost importance, but in cases involving anti-national activities, terrorism, involvement with dreaded gangsters where there was a clear possibility of continued involvement, the considerations of bail could not be the same. The Court stated that the innocence of the accused at this stage could not be said to be prima facie, proved under the rigours of Section 43D(5) of UAPA, and thus, it was not inclined to grant bail at this stage.
Background
In the present case, on 12-09-2022, a raid was conducted at the accused’s residential premises and during the said raid, the National Investigation Agency (‘NIA’) recovered various weapons, ammunition, bank passbooks, mobile phones, etc. The same were seized by the NIA and the accused was arrested on 1-10-2022. Subsequently, the accused sought bail from the NIA Court. However, vide the impugned order dated 10-05-2023, the Special Judge (NIA), Patiala House Courts, New Delhi dismissed the bail application filed on behalf of the accused.
Hence, the present appeal was filed.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court stated that as per the NIA, the entire investigation in the present case started when a terrorist organization, Babbar Khalsa International (‘BKI’) was being activated and certain members of the said organization had joined hands with the Lawrence Bishnoi (‘LB’) criminal syndicate. According to the NIA, the BKI was involved in the various illegal acts in India especially in Punjab and was involved in killings of certain celebrities such as Sidhu Moosewala, in Punjab. As per the NIA, the ideological objective of this organisation, was to revive the Khalistan movement in Punjab.
The Court stated the perusal of the testimonies of the protected witnesses, left no iota of doubt that granting bail to the accused at this stage, would be detrimental to the safety and security of the country. The testimonies of these protected witnesses revealed a serious situation and the same could not be brushed aside. While acknowledging that speedy trial was necessary as a Constitutional prescription, the Court observed that in cases involving anti-national activities and terrorism on an international scale, long incarceration ought not to lead to enlargement on bail when facts showed involvement in such activities having a national and transnational impact.
The Court stated that in the present case, a large quantum of weapons, expensive mobile phones, ammunitions, etc. were found from the accused’s residence. In these circumstances, a prima facie opinion against the innocence of the accused was drawn, as it was not normal or justifiable to find incriminating evidence of this quantity at someone’s residence.
The Court noted the allegations that the accused had a son who had already absconded from bail to Thailand and had to be extradited back to India. There were also allegations made by the NIA that the accused had a substantial base in Thailand and the chances of flight risk were quite high. Moreover, considering the deep-rooted involvement of the entire family, the Court stated that the accused’s propensity to indulge in continued illegal activity and support for LB’s gang was also quite high. The Court stated that the inability to refute these allegations, was enough at this stage, to hold that the accused did not satisfy the triple test of bail jurisprudence.
The Court stated that while speedy trial and liberty of an individual were of utmost importance, but in cases involving anti-national activities, terrorism, involvement with dreaded gangsters where there was a clear possibility of continued involvement, the considerations of bail could not be the same.
The Court stated that the innocence of the accused at this stage could not be said to be prima facie, proved under the rigours of Section 43D(5) UAPA, as both the sons were in custody at the time, when the search was conducted at the accused’s house. Therefore, it was implausible for the Court to believe that such a large quantum of expensive mobile phones and the whole cache of weapons which were found including guns and live cartridges, etc. could have been stored without the accused’s knowledge, in his own residence where he and his wife resided. Thus, the Court stated that it was not inclined to grant bail in the present case and dismissed the present petition.
[Joginder Singh v. NIA, CRL.A., 799 of 2023, decided on 17-01-2025]
*Judgment authored by: Justice Prathiba M. Singh
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Appellant: Nishant Rana, Rajani, Manveen Dhanjal, Adarsh Shandilya, Zeba Parveen, Deepak, Shubham Singh, Rajvant and Jatin, Advocates.
For the Respondent: Rahul Tyagi, SPP with Jatin, Amit Rohilla and Aniket Singh, Advocates.
1. Section 60 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
