ATHAR PARWEZ versus UNION OF INDIA
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 1093, Supreme Court of India, 2024
Outcome: Appeal(s) allowed (Granted)
Segment: Issues
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 1093 : 2024 INSC 995
Athar Parwez 
v.
Union of India
(Criminal Appeal No. 5387 of 2024)
17 December 2024
[Abhay S. Oka and Augustine George Masih,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Appellant alleged to be an active member of the Popular Front 
of India (PFI) involved in planning to cause disturbance during 
the proposed visit of Prime Minister of India to Patna in 2022. 
Chargesheet filed against the appellant under Sections 121, 121A, 
122, 153A & 153B of the IPC and Sections 13, 17, 18, 18A, 18B & 
20, Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. Charges not framed 
yet. Appellant has undergone long incarceration, no likelihood of 
trial being completed in near future. High Court whether justified 
in denying bail.
Headnotes†
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 – s.43-D(5) – 
Constitution of India – Article 21 – Denial of bail to the 
appellant – Challenge to:
Held: Impugned judgment set aside – The PFI of which the appellant 
was a member has not been declared a terrorist organisation within 
the meaning of Section 2(m), UAPA, 1967 – It is not mentioned 
as a terrorist organisation in the first schedule thereof – The 
chargesheet and the statement of witness ‘Z’ when seen as it is, it 
would not be possible to record prima facie finding that commission 
of offence under the UAPA, 1967 would be attracted as there are 
no reasonable grounds for believing that the accusations are prima 
facie correct – Statement of the protected witnesses does not 
mention
anything specific that would be attributed to the appellant 
which could prima facie attract charges under UAPA – Test relating 
to Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA, 1967 satisfied – Further, the 
appellant was arrested on 12.07.2022 and has undergone custody 
for more than two years and four months– Chargesheet was filed 
on 07.01.2023 but till date charges have not been framed – There 
* Author
1094
[2024] 12 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
are 40 accused and 354 witnesses to be examined – Trial is not 
likely to be completed soon – Appellant cannot be allowed to 
languish in jail indefinitely and that too without a trial in violation 
of Article 21 – Co-accused of the Appellant has been granted bail 
on similar grounds – Appellant granted bail on the conditions to 
be fixed by the Special Court. [Paras 28, 31-34]
Criminal Law – Bail – Bar/strict statutory provisions – 
Constitution of India – Article 21 – Right of speedy trial – Grant 
of bail in cases of long incarceration, delay in conclusion of 
the trial – Discussed:
Held: Keeping the statutory provisions in mind but with the passage 
of time the effect of that statutory provision would in fact have to 
be diluted giving way to the mandate of Part III of the Constitution 
where the accused as of now is not a convict and is facing the 
charges – Constitutional right of speedy trial in such circumstances 
will have precedence over the bar/strict provisions of the statute 
and cannot be made the sole reason for denial of bail – Therefore, 
the period of incarceration of an accused could also be a relevant 
factor to be considered by the constitutional courts not to be merely 
governed by the statutory provisions. [Para 20]
Case Law Cited
Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb [2021] 1 SCR 443 : (2021) 3 SCC 
713; Thwaha Fasal v. Union of India [2021] 8 SCR 797 : (2022) 
14 SCC 766; Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of
Maharashtra 
and Anr. [2024] 7 SCR 992 : 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1693 – held 
applicable.
National Investigation Agency v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali [2019] 
5 SCR 1060 : (2019) 5 SCC 1; Jalaluddin Khan v. Union of India 
[2024] 8 SCR 633 : 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1945 – referred to.
List of Acts
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967; Penal Code, 1860; 
Constitution of India.
List of Keywords
Bail; Section 43-D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 
1967; Popular Front of India (PFI); Disturbance; Proposed visit of
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 
1095
Athar Parwez v. Union of India
Prime Minister of India; Charges under UAPA; Long incarceration; 
Terrorist organisation; Languish in jail indefinitely; Article 21 of 
the Constitution of India; Co-accused; Delay in conclusion of the 
trial; Right of speedy trial; Period of incarceration; Islamic rule; 
Recoveries; Religious disharmony; Religious hatred; Terrorist 
organisation; Islamic rule; Nupur Sharma; Prophet Mohammad; 
Communal sloganeering; Objectionable activities; Student Islamic 
Movement of India (SIMI).
Case Arising From
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 5387 
of 2024
From the Judgment and Order dated 28.11.2023 of the High Court 
of Judicature at Patna in CRADB No. 516 of 2023
Appearances for Parties
Dr. Aditya Sondhi, Sr. Adv., Divyesh Pratap Singh, Adil Sharfuddin, 
Shashank Singh, Akash Alex, Ms. Aishwarya Sm, Ms. Meghana 
Tm,  Anubhav Kumar, Advs. for the Appellant.
Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, A.S.G., Ms. Poornima Singh, Ms. Shagun 
Thakur, Vasu Vats, Ms. Shivika Mehra, Ms. Bani Dikshit, Ms. Seema 
Bengani, Parantap Singh, Ms. Rajeshwari Shankar, Arvind Kumar 
Sharma, Advs. for the Respondent.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Augustine George Masih, J.
1.	
Leave granted.
2.	
The Appellant herein has approached this Court seeking bail during 
the pendency of trial after dismissal of his bail application by the High 
Court of Patna vide impugned Order dated 28.11.2023 in Criminal 
Appeal (DB) No.516 of 2023.
The Appellant is booked as Accused 
No.01 in FIR No. 827 of 2022, which was registered at Police Station 
Phulwari Sharif, Patna under Sections 120, 120-B, 121, 121A, 153A, 
153B, & 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to 
as the “IPC”).
1096
[2024] 12 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
3.	
The Appellant along with a co-accused Jalaluddin Khan alias Md. 
Jalaluddin was arrested on 12.07.2022. Allegations against the 
Appellant are that he is an active member of the Popular Front of 
India (hereinafter referred to as the “PFI”), and he along with his 
associates were planning to cause disturbance during the proposed 
visit of Prime Minister of India to Patna, this led to the raid being 
conducted on 11.07.2022 at first floor Ahmad Palace, Phulwari Sharif, 
Patna which was taken on rent by the Appellant from co-accused 
Md. Jalaluddin.
4.	
During the raid certain recoveries were carried out, prominent 
amongst them was a document titled “India 2047 towards rule of 
Islam in India, internal Document not for circulation”. Assertions 
have been made in the complaint on the basis of the documents 
seized that the Appellant along with the other members of the PFI 
aimed at disrupting the sovereignty of India and cause disaffection 
against the country.
5.	
Keeping in view the seriousness of the allegations and the offences 
involved, Government of India vide Official Order dated 22.07.2022 
directed the National Investigating Agency (hereinafter referred to 
as the “NIA”) to take up the investigation. Accordingly, the NIA re-
registered a case as R.C- 31/2022/NIA/DLI dated 22.07.2022 under 
Sections 120, 120B, 121, 121A, 153A, and Section 13 of the of the 
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (hereinafter referred
to as 
the “UAPA 1967”) and took up the investigation. After investigation, 
chargesheet against the Appellant was filed on 07.01.2023 under 
Sections 121, 121A, 122, 153A & 153B of the IPC and Sections 13, 
17, 18, 18A, 18B & 20 of UAPA, 1967. However, charges till date 
have not been framed.
6.	
The learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant has asserted that 
the seizure of documents as has been alleged from the rented 
accommodation of the Appellant is highly suspicious and doubtful 
rather it is concocted and manufactured. As per the seizure memo/list, 
the recovery has been made from the second floor of Ahmad Palace 
which according to the prosecution itself was never in possession 
of the Appellant rather it is the first floor which was on rent with the 
Appellant. Even the rent deed on which reliance has been placed 
mentions explicitly about the first floor.
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 
1097
Athar Parwez v. Union of India
7.	
It is contended that going by the allegations against the Appellant, 
no offence under the UAPA, 1967 or even the predicate offence is 
made out. He submits that primary allegations are with regard to the 
alleged recovery seven-page document titled “India 2047 towards 
rule of Islam in India, internal document, not for circulation” which 
contained various recitals relatable to an Islamic rule which is to be 
established in India. It is contended that there are no independent 
witnesses to the alleged recovery seizure memo/list. As also the said 
document does not in any manner talk about any terrorist activities 
or overt act to be carried out which would create disharmony or 
religious hatred. 
8.	
The learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant further submits that 
PFI has been banned vide a Gazette Notification dated 28.09.2022 
issued by the Government of India for a period of five years. On the 
date when the raid was conducted i.e. 11.07.2022 and on the date 
of the Appellant’s arrest i.e. 12.07.2022, PFI was legally constituted 
organisation. Till date, this organisation has not been declared a 
terrorist organisation. He asserted that the chargesheet as has been 
filed by the prosecution would not indicate any active role played by 
the Appellant except that he had participated in some demonstrations 
and protests against the policies of the State or rather in the backdrop 
of remarks made by one Nupur Sharma
against Prophet Mohammad.
9.	
Another allegation is with regard to having organized a meeting on 
6th and 7th of July 2022 in the rented first floor premises of Ahmad 
Palace. The statements of the witnesses also according to the 
allegations do not indicate that the Appellant had actively participated 
in any discussions or had instigated any of the persons present there 
to commit any of the offence which would fall within the purview of 
the offences mentioned in the chargesheet. 
10.	 The learned Senior Counsel has further asserted that the co-accused 
of the Appellant (Jalaluddin Khan) whose application was also 
considered for grant of bail by the High Court along with that of the 
Appellant, had been granted bail by this Court in Criminal Appeal 
No. 3173 of 2024.1 His role is similar to that of the Appellant except 
that he was said to be the person who was the owner of the building 
and had rented the accommodation to the Appellant. As regards his 
1	
2024 SCC OnLine SC 1945/ Criminal Appeal No. 3173 of 2024 decided on 13.08.2024.
1098
[2024] 12 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
participation in the meeting on 6th and 7th July 2022 is concerned, 
he is in a same position with the co-accused already granted bail by 
this Court. Mere participation in the meeting would not be enough. 
The other co-accused against whom similar allegations of being 
a member of the PFI and participating in protests where alleged 
communal slogans were raised have been enlarged on bail by the 
High Court. Even the testimony of the protected witnesses does not 
implicate the Appellant in the alleged crime as per the chargesheet. 
11.	 Learned Senior Counsel has also drawn attention of this Court to the 
statement made by prosecution witness Saiyed Abu Monawwar to 
submit that as per this witness, there are commercial establishments 
such as shops and pathology labs on the ground floor of the building 
where the raid was conducted. CCTV cameras would not have been 
permitted to be installed in the said premises or on the first floor also 
had some objectionable activities being carried out by the PFI. This 
also reflects that it does not stand to logic. It is not therefore logical 
and does not make sense where such objectionable activities were 
to be carried out as has been alleged the same would be in such 
an area as has been described by the prosecution.
12.	 Another submission which has been put forth is that there are 354 
witnesses cited by the prosecution and the Appellant is in custody 
since 12.07.2022 for more than
two years and four months with the 
trial not likely to conclude in the near future. The Appellant deserves 
to be released on bail as this would amount to violation of Article 21 
of the Constitution of India.
13.	 On the other hand, the learned Additional Solicitor General for the 
Respondent has asserted that during the raid conducted by the Bihar 
Police, not only the incriminating material/documents were recovered 
from the premises in question, but other electronic items have also 
been recovered which clearly establishes that the Appellant was 
an active member of the PFI and had not only participated in the 
protests but has actively organized the same. She contends that 
training and meeting was conducted in the rented premises of the 
Appellant in furtherance and establishment of the Islamic rule in 
India. In these meetings, the participants who were from different 
States joined and directions were given in the said meeting to kill 
and attack those who make derogatory statements about Prophet 
Mohammad and Islam.
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 
1099
Athar Parwez v. Union of India
14.	 It is further submitted that the Appellant had been working to create 
a secret group of ex-Student Islamic Movement of India (hereinafter 
referred to as the “SIMI”) members, which is the banned organisation, 
in order to take revenge against the persons who made or make 
derogatory statements against Islam. The Appellant and other 
co-accused had participated in protest and videos were recovered 
where communal sloganeering was recorded and circulated which 
not only was intended to create disturbance but religious disharmony 
and discord within the society. The CDR records established that the 
Appellant was in touch with other co-accused and had conspired to 
expand the unlawful ideology of the PFI. About the participation of the 
Appellant and the other co-accused named in the First Information 
Report, she states that CCTV footage of 6th and 7th July installed at 
the Ahmad Palace depicts the same which establishes the involvement 
of the Appellant in conspiracy for carrying out unlawful activities with 
an intention to disturb the security, integrity and sovereignty of the 
country and promote feeling of enmity and hatred between different 
groups. The Courts below and especially the Special Judge, NIA 
Patna has taken cognizance of the chargesheet on 28.04.2023.
15.	 Learned Additional Solicitor General,  however could not dispute 
the stage of the trial as no charges have been framed. Emphasis 
has been
laid by the Learned Additional Solicitor General upon 
the statements of the protected witnesses, with special emphasis 
upon that of Z, Y & X. Reliance has also been placed upon the 
statement of witness Murtuj Ali. Reference has also been made to 
the chargesheet paragraph 15.2 with regard to the protest march and 
sloganeering on 09.06.2022 in the area of Police Station, Pirbahor, 
Patna. Paragraph 15.5 relating to electronic evidence where the hard 
disk/DVR of the CCTV installed in Ahmad Palace were recovered 
showing the presence of the Appellant in meeting held on 6th and 
7th of July 2022. Paragraph 17.2 again refers to the details with 
regard to the training conducted in the rented premises as also the 
Appellant’s connection with the SIMI. Paragraphs 17.3 and 17.4 
are with regard to the document titled ‘India 2047 towards rule of 
Islam in India, internal document, not for circulation’, the contents 
thereof have been mentioned therein. Paragraph 17.13 highlights 
the call data records of the mobile numbers used by the accused 
persons revealing their location and connection with each other in 
the meeting dated 6th and 7th of July 2022. Paragraphs 17.15 and
1100
[2024] 12 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
17.16 - statement of protected witness ‘Z’. Paragraph 17.33 relates 
to the collection of funds for Zakat and donations by the Appellant 
and others on directions of the senior members of the PFI. Paragraph 
17.34 relates to the statement of the protected witness ‘Y’ with 
reference to these allegations in the chargesheet. 
16.	 The learned Additional Solicitor General has thus asserted that there 
are serious allegations against the Appellant and therefore the Orders 
as has been passed by the Courts below are fully justified and the 
prayer made in the present Appeal deserves to be rejected. 
17.	 We have considered the submissions made by the Counsel for 
the parties and with their able assistance have gone through the 
chargesheet. Before we proceed in the matter, the principles which 
have to be kept in mind while considering the prayer for grant of 
bail under Section 43-D (5) of UAPA, 1967 have to be looked into. 
18.	 This Court had an occasion to deal with the case of an accused 
charged under Chapters IV and VI of the UAPA, 1967, who sought bail 
during the pendency of the trial in the case of National Investigation 
Agency v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali.2 In that case, this Court 
had gone to the extent of stating that the statutory bar on grant 
of bail could not be an impediment if the court on appreciation of 
totality of evidence is satisfied that the accusations are prima facie 
not true. The court is required to
consider and examine not only 
the FIR but the case diary and chargesheet and to examine them 
on broad probabilities regarding involvement of the accused in the 
crime to determine whether the accusations are prima facie true 
as compared to holding the accused not guilty, which would entitle 
the provisions of Section 43-D(5) of UAPA, 1967, being not an 
impediment in grant of bail.
The Court further concluded that if on perusal of the case diary and 
chargesheet, an opinion is formed that there are no reasonable 
grounds for believing that the accusations against such person are 
prima facie true, the accused can be released on bail. It may be 
added here that while forming an opinion as to whether there are 
reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against the 
accused is prima facie true or otherwise the said documents have 
2	
[2019] 5 SCR 1060 : (2019) 5 SCC 1
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 
1101
Athar Parwez v. Union of India
to be accepted as it is. 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. 
19.	 Long incarceration and unlikely likelihood of trial being completed 
in near future has also been taken as a ground for exercising its 
constitutional role by the Constitutional Courts to grant bail on violation 
of Article 21 of the Constitution of India which guarantees trial to 
be concluded within a reasonable time. Gross delay in conclusion 
of the trial would justify such invocation leading to a conclusion of 
violation of Part III the Constitution of India, which may be taken as 
a ground to release an undertrial on bail. A reference in this regard 
may be made to the judgment of this Court in Union of India v. K.A. 
Najeeb.3 It requires mention that in that case this Court considered 
the factum that there were 276 witnesses left to be examined which 
would lead to a prolong trial resulting in no possibility of the trial coming 
to an end at an early date resulting in suffering of incarceration for 
a significant period of time by an accused, making it an obligation 
on the Court on such consideration to enlarge such an accused on 
bail. It may be mentioned here that the Court was cautious enough to 
mention that the restrictions under the statute as in this case, Section 
43-D (5) of UAPA, 1967 as well
as the powers exercisable under 
the Constitutional jurisdiction by the Court need to be harmonized.
20.	 At the initial stage, the legislative policy needs to be appreciated 
and followed by the Courts. Keeping the statutory provisions in mind 
but with the passage of time the effect of that statutory provision 
would in fact have to be diluted giving way to the mandate of Part 
III of the Constitution where the accused as of now is not a convict 
and is facing the charges. Constitutional right of speedy trial in such 
circumstances will have precedence over the bar/strict provisions of 
the statute and cannot be made the sole reason for denial of bail. 
Therefore, the period of incarceration of an accused could also be 
a relevant factor to be considered by the constitutional courts not 
to be merely governed by the statutory provisions. 
21.	 Reference can also be made to the judgments of this Court in Thwaha 
Fasal v. Union of India4 as also Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. 
3	
[2021] 1 SCR 443 : (2021) 3 SCC 713
4	
[2021] 8 SCR 797 : (2022) 14 SCC 766
1102
[2024] 12 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
State of Maharashtra and Anr.5 where again, the Court was dealing 
with the provisions of UAPA, 1967 and had reiterated the abovesaid 
principles. Giving precedence to the protection of Fundamental Rights 
and emphasising upon their primacy over the statutory provisions in 
case of delayed trial.  In the above judgments, this Court had even 
gone to the extent of asserting that the seriousness of the crime for 
which the accused is facing the trial would not be material as an 
accused is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty. 
22.	 With these basic principles in mind, we now proceed to consider the 
position with regard to the present Appeal. The allegations against 
the Appellant as has been stated above primarily are that he is an 
active member of the PFI, which according to the prosecution is an 
organisation committed to bringing about Islamic rule in India. For 
the said purpose, disharmony and internal conflicts are sought to 
be brought about within the society so that there is discontentment 
and the peace and calm within the society gets disturbed. Resort to 
violence and violent means has also been alleged to be preached and 
practiced by the said organisation in which the Appellant had been 
taking an active role. He is the person who participated in the protest 
held on 09.06.2022 against the remarks made by Nupur Sharma 
against Prophet Mohammad and Islam. In the said protest, not only 
was he a participant but
an organizer and had been encouraging 
the protesters to use provocative slogans. Apart from this, there are 
allegations that he had taken first floor of Ahmad Palace on rent 
where activities of PFI were being carried out. Specific reference 
has been made to the meeting/training program of the PFI held on 
29th May 2022 and 6th and 7th July 2022.
23.	 In these meetings, not only was there participation on the part of 
the Appellant but 30-40 other members of the PFI. The allegation 
against the Appellant is that he had organized the said meetings, 
used his own premises and had also stored and kept documents 
and material relatable to PFI which were objectionable. In the said 
meetings, discussions to fulfil the agenda of India 2047 rule of Islam 
in India was planned and steps to be taken for giving it effect were 
being worked upon. The members present were called upon to 
target and neutralize persons who make remarks against Prophet 
Mohammad and Islam.
5	
[2024] 7 SCR 992 : 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1693
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 
1103
Athar Parwez v. Union of India
24.	 Reliance has been placed with regard to the statements of the 
protected witnesses especially X, Y and Z to substantiate the said 
allegations as also the recovered documents from the premises. The 
factual aspect with regard to the number of witnesses, the period of 
incarceration and that there are 40 accused in the case has not been 
disputed. Reference at this stage is to be made to the judgment of 
this Court in Jalaluddin Khan v. Union of India6 which related to the 
co-accused of the Appellant whose appeal for grant of bail under the 
UAPA, 1967 along with that of the present Appellant was rejected by 
a common impugned judgment of the High Court. The only distinction 
between the case of the present Appellant and Md. Jalaluddin was 
that he was the owner of the premises whereas the Appellant is a 
tenant thereof. Participation of the Appellant, as well as co-accused 
Md. Jalaluddin along with the other accused in the meeting of 6th 
and 7th July 2022 had not been disputed. The evidence against the 
Appellant as also the co-accused Md. Jalaluddin is almost the same.
25.	 The most prominent evidence is the testimony of the protected witness 
‘Z’ who was alleged to be inducted into the PFI for providing physical 
training to its members. In his statement, there is no mention of the 
Appellant taking part in or leading any of those meetings/trainings 
where physical training was imparted teaching attack and
defensive 
techniques using sticks, knives or other weapons. As regards the 
meeting held on 29th May 2022 at Ahmad Palace what has been 
stated by him is merely that the Appellant along with 40-45 persons 
participated in the meeting which was presided over by one Riyaz 
Firnagipet. In this meeting, issues like expansion of organisation, 
strengthening of Muslims on political, educational and administrative 
fronts were discussed. Nothing incriminating is alleged to have 
been mentioned which would attract charges under the UAPA, 1967 
especially the ones which have been alleged to have been committed 
by the Appellant. Reference has also been made with regard to the 
meeting held on 6th and 7th of July 2022 at Ahmad Palace. In the 
said meeting, no active role is attributed to the Appellant except for 
he being present and that the premises where this meeting was 
held was in his possession being a tenant. Again, there is nothing 
incriminating against the Appellant in the statement given by witness 
“Z” with regard to the present meeting. The witness has merely stated 
6	
[2024] 8 SCR 633 : 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1945/ Criminal Appeal No. 317 of 2024 decided on 13.08.2024.
1104
[2024] 12 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
that the meeting was convened in view of the derogatory statements 
made by one Nupur Sharma against Prophet Mohammad. 
26.	 This Court in the case dealing with the bail application of Md. 
Jalaluddin, the co-accused of the Appellant and the owner of the 
premises had an occasion to deal with the paragraphs of the 
chargesheet where reference to the meetings held on 29th May 2022 
and 6th and 7th of July, 2022 were made. The said paragraphs had 
been reproduced herein under. On consideration of the allegations 
made therein, when seen in the context of the statement of the 
protected witness ‘Z’ as has been supplied to the Court for perusal 
it was stated in Paragraph 11  of the said judgment (relevant part) 
reads as follows: 
“11. xxx              xxx              xxx                      xxx
Paragraph 17.16 alleges that protected witness Z stated 
that in the meeting, subjects such as the expansion of the 
organisation, basic and advanced training of PFI members 
and future PFI plans were discussed, and a direction was 
given to trained PFI cadre to eliminate one Nupur Sharma. 
In the statement of protected witness Z, all that is not 
found. In fact, protected witness Z stated that during the 
meeting, emphasis was given on strengthening the status 
of Muslims, imparting them basic and advanced training 
and strengthening the status of education, politics and 
administration of Muslims and Muslim empowerment. 
Going by the
witness’s version, we find that there was 
no discussion about the activities of PFI in the meeting 
held on 29th May 2022. We are not reproducing the 
statement of the protected witness Z as it has been kept 
in a sealed cover. Suffice it to say that what is reproduced 
in paragraph 17.16 is not correct. The material portion of 
witness Z’s actual statement has been completely distorted 
in paragraph of the charge sheet. Several things which 
protected witness Z did not state have been incorporated in 
paragraph 17.16. Unfortunately, paragraph 17.16 attributes 
certain statements to protected witness Z, which he did not 
make. NIA owes an explanation for that. The investigating 
machinery has to be fair. But, in this case, paragraph 17.16 
indicates to the contrary.”
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 
1105
Athar Parwez v. Union of India
27.	 The Court had further gone to the extent of saying and rightly so 
that in the chargesheet there is no allegation that the Appellant was 
a member of a terrorist gang or organisation. It is worth mentioning 
here that the PFI of which the Appellant was a member has not been 
declared a terrorist organisation within the meaning of Section 2(m) 
of the UAPA, 1967. It was also found that the PFI is not mentioned 
as a terrorist organisation in the first schedule of UAPA, 1967. The 
chargesheet and the statement of witness ‘Z’ when seen as it is, it 
would not be possible to record prima facie finding that commission 
of offence under the UAPA, 1967 would be attracted as there are 
no reasonable grounds for believing that the accusations are prima 
facie correct.
28.	 Now, moving on to the statement of the protected witness ‘Y’. The 
testimony of the protected witness ‘Y’ when perused indicates that 
the Appellant is alleged to be a person of staunch religious nature 
who used to participate in religious processions and demonstrations 
against the policies of the Government. He had been motivating the 
people of his locality to join the activities of the PFI. The meetings 
held at Ahmad Palace has been acknowledged by him to be so held 
where lot of outsiders had come. He is, however, completely silent 
with regard to the nature of the activities or the meetings held therein. 
29.	 As regards protected witness ‘X’,
although he had identified the 
Appellant to be involved in the protest/demonstration held on 
09.06.2022 against the remarks made by Nupur Sharma against 
Prophet Mohammad where provocative slogans were raised. The 
allegation against the Appellant is that he had been encouraging 
others to do so. Beyond that, there is nothing which is alleged 
against the Appellant which would bring the act or omission of the 
Appellant within the ambit of the alleged offences committed by him 
under the UAPA, 1967.
30.	 Allegations against the Appellant with regard to having collected Zakat 
from the people for helping the PFI or recruiting members of PFI. 
Suffice it to say at this stage, that on the day such activities were 
carried out by the Appellant, PFI was not a banned organisation. 
None of the witnesses or the protected witnesses stated that the 
money so collected in the form of Zakat was ever misappropriated 
by the Appellant or was in any manner used for illegal activities. The 
statement of the protected witnesses has not mentioned anything
1106
[2024] 12 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
specific that would be attributed to the Appellant which could prima 
facie attract charges under the UAPA, 1967. 
31.	 It is thus apparent that the first test as has been laid down by the 
various judgments of this Court referred to above, stands satisfied 
relating to Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA, 1967. Another aspect which 
cannot be ignored is that the material which has been allegedly 
recovered from the Appellant especially the documents which 
according to the prosecution contained the incriminating contents as 
per the seizure memo were from the second floor. As is apparent from 
the rent deed, on which the prosecution itself has placed reliance, 
only the first floor was rented out of Ahmad Palace to the Appellant, 
and he was in exclusive possession thereof. This also raises some 
doubt with regard to the recovery of the material.
32.	 The Appellant was arrested on 12.07.2022. He has undergone custody 
for more than two years and four months. Chargesheet was filed on 
07.01.2023 but till date charges have not been framed which is an 
admitted position. There are 40 accused and 354 witnesses cited 
by the prosecution to be examined. There can be no doubt that the 
trial is not likely to complete soon, and as has been laid down by 
various judgments of this Court as has been referred to above, the 
Appellant cannot be allowed to languish in jail indefinitely and that 
too without a trial. If such an approach is allowed
Article 21 of the 
Constitution of India would stand violated. The ratio as laid down by 
this Court in Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb (supra) as also the other 
judgments in Javed Ghulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra 
and Anr. (supra) and Thwaha Fasal v. Union of India (supra) would 
be applicable to this case and would squarely apply entitling the 
Appellant for grant of bail. 
33.	 The co-accused of the Appellant, Md. Jalaluddin has on similar 
grounds been granted the same benefit. In the said case, this Court 
in paragraph 21 has held as follows:
“21. Before we part with the Judgment, we must mention 
here that the Special Court and the High Court did not 
consider the material in the charge sheet objectively. 
Perhaps the focus was more on the activities of PFI, 
and therefore, the appellant’s case could not be properly 
appreciated. When a case is made out for a grant of 
bail, the Courts should not have any hesitation in
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 
1107
Athar Parwez v. Union of India
granting bail. The allegations of the prosecution may 
be very serious. But, the duty of the Courts is to 
consider the case for grant of bail in accordance with 
the law. Even in a case like the present case where 
there are stringent conditions for the grant of bail in 
the relevant statutes, the same rule holds good with 
only modification that the bail can be granted if the 
conditions in the statute are satisfied. The rule also 
means that once a case is made out for the grant of bail, 
the Court cannot decline to grant bail. If the Courts start 
denying bail in deserving cases, it will be a violation of 
the rights guaranteed under Article 21 of our Constitution.”
(Emphasis Supplied)
34.	 In the light of the above, the impugned judgment is set aside. The 
Appeal is accordingly allowed with a direction that the Appellant be 
enlarged on bail on the appropriate terms and conditions to be fixed 
by the Special Court. 
35.	 The Appellant for this purpose shall be produced before the Special 
Court within a maximum period of 07 days from today. The Special 
Court shall enlarge the Appellant on bail until the conclusion of the 
trial on appropriate terms and conditions after hearing the Counsel 
for the Respondent. 
36.	 It is clarified here that the observations made hereinabove are tentative 
in nature, with reference to the prayer made in the present Appeal 
confining it to the case of the Appellant. It shall have no
bearing on 
the trial or on the case of the co-accused.
37.	 Pending applications if any stand disposed of. 
Result of the case: Appeal allowed.
†Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey