UNION OF INDIA REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY CHENNAI BRANCH  versus BARAKATHULLAH ETC.
[2024] 5 S.C.R. 1011, Supreme Court of India, 2024
Outcome: Appeal(s) allowed (Granted)
Segment: Issues
* Author
[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
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 
No.
Name 
Relevant statements of protected and listed 
witnesses
A-1
A.M. Idris @ 
Ahamed Idris
The role and involvement of A-1 Ahamed 
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 
Abuthahir
The role and involvement of A-3 Mohammed 
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 
Mohammed
The
role and involvement of A-4 Khalid 
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 
Maideen
The role ad involvement of A-6 S. Khaja 
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 
Ahmed
The role ad involvement of A-9 Fayaz 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