New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday set aside the Madras High Court decision which had granted bail to eight alleged PFI members and office-bearers, saying national security is always of "paramount importance" and anyone aiding terrorist activity Work may also be restricted. ,
The top court said it is satisfied with the charge sheet filed in the case, the materials and documents relied upon by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) and that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the allegations against him are "prima facie true". " Were.
The apex court delivered its verdict on the NIA's appeal against the High Court's October 19 decision last year, which had granted bail to the eight accused, who are alleged members of the Popular Front of India (PFI), under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code. In the case registered under. Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and the Indian Penal Code. A bench of Justices Bela M Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal said it was mindful of the legal position that the high court has to slow down in interfering with the order granting bail. NeededHowever it is equally well settled that if such order granting bail is found to be illegal and perverse, it should be quashed.
"This court has often interpreted anti-terrorism acts to strike a balance between the civil liberties of the accused, the human rights of the victim and the compelling interest of the State," the bench said.
It said, "It cannot be denied that national security is always paramount and any act - violent or non-violent - that aids any terrorist act can be prohibited." UAPA is one of the Acts which has been enacted for effective prevention of certain unlawful activities of individuals and organizations and to combat terrorist activities as well as to impose reasonable restrictions on civil liberties in the interest of individuals. o Sovereignty and integrity of India.It said there was sufficient material in the form of digital devices, books, photographs, etc., statements of witnesses and other incriminating evidence collected during the investigation and the NIA relied on it to form reasonable grounds for forming an opinion. . The allegations against the accused were prima facie true.
"Considering the nature and gravity of the alleged offenses and considering his criminal history, in our opinion the High Court should not have adopted a lenient approach, especially when there was a prima facie case to be made to show his involvement in the alleged offenses under UAPA. There was enough material." The bench said, "In the present case, we are satisfied from the charge sheet and other materials/documents relied upon by the Appellant (NIA) that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the allegations against the respondents are prima facie true and the order contained in The provision of section 43(d)(5) shall be applicable for not releasing the respondents on bail.
The top court, while setting aside the High Court's decision, said that these eight accused will have to immediately surrender before the NIA.Noting that the charge sheet has already been filed before the trial court, the bench directed that the special court conduct the trial as expeditiously as possible and in accordance with law, without being influenced by any observation made by the apex court in the matter. Will take it forward. Order.It said that the eight accused - Barakathulla, Idris, Mohammed Abuthahir Khalid Mohammed, Syed Ishaq, Khaja Mohideen, Yasser Arafat and Fayyaz Ahmed were arrested on September 22, 2022 and remained in custody for hardly 1.5 years Were.
On October 20 last year, the top court had posted the NIA plea challenging the high court order for hearing after lawyer Rajat Nair, appearing for the anti-terror agency, mentioned it for urgent listing. .
In its petition, the NIA had claimed that the PFI is a radical Islamic organization and was formed only to achieve the "dangerous goal" of establishing Muslim rule in India governed by Sharia law.It said an FIR was lodged against alleged officials, members and cadres of PFI, who were spreading extremist ideology across Tamil Nadu after setting up its state headquarters at Purasaivakkam in Chenna and offices in various districts of the state. Organization.
It said, "It is respectfully submitted that the leaders/cadres of PFI had formed this organization only to achieve the dangerous goal of 'Vision India 2047', i.e. making this country a nation inhabited by Muslims as per Sharia law. Be made governed."
The top court said it is satisfied with the charge sheet filed in the case, the materials and documents relied upon by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) and that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the allegations against him are "prima facie true". " Were.
The apex court delivered its verdict on the NIA's appeal against the High Court's October 19 decision last year, which had granted bail to the eight accused, who are alleged members of the Popular Front of India (PFI), under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code. In the case registered under. Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and the Indian Penal Code. A bench of Justices Bela M Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal said it was mindful of the legal position that the high court has to slow down in interfering with the order granting bail. NeededHowever it is equally well settled that if such order granting bail is found to be illegal and perverse, it should be quashed.
"This court has often interpreted anti-terrorism acts to strike a balance between the civil liberties of the accused, the human rights of the victim and the compelling interest of the State," the bench said.
It said, "It cannot be denied that national security is always paramount and any act - violent or non-violent - that aids any terrorist act can be prohibited." UAPA is one of the Acts which has been enacted for effective prevention of certain unlawful activities of individuals and organizations and to combat terrorist activities as well as to impose reasonable restrictions on civil liberties in the interest of individuals. o Sovereignty and integrity of India.It said there was sufficient material in the form of digital devices, books, photographs, etc., statements of witnesses and other incriminating evidence collected during the investigation and the NIA relied on it to form reasonable grounds for forming an opinion. . The allegations against the accused were prima facie true.
"Considering the nature and gravity of the alleged offenses and considering his criminal history, in our opinion the High Court should not have adopted a lenient approach, especially when there was a prima facie case to be made to show his involvement in the alleged offenses under UAPA. There was enough material." The bench said, "In the present case, we are satisfied from the charge sheet and other materials/documents relied upon by the Appellant (NIA) that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the allegations against the respondents are prima facie true and the order contained in The provision of section 43(d)(5) shall be applicable for not releasing the respondents on bail.
The top court, while setting aside the High Court's decision, said that these eight accused will have to immediately surrender before the NIA.Noting that the charge sheet has already been filed before the trial court, the bench directed that the special court conduct the trial as expeditiously as possible and in accordance with law, without being influenced by any observation made by the apex court in the matter. Will take it forward. Order.It said that the eight accused - Barakathulla, Idris, Mohammed Abuthahir Khalid Mohammed, Syed Ishaq, Khaja Mohideen, Yasser Arafat and Fayyaz Ahmed were arrested on September 22, 2022 and remained in custody for hardly 1.5 years Were.
On October 20 last year, the top court had posted the NIA plea challenging the high court order for hearing after lawyer Rajat Nair, appearing for the anti-terror agency, mentioned it for urgent listing. .
In its petition, the NIA had claimed that the PFI is a radical Islamic organization and was formed only to achieve the "dangerous goal" of establishing Muslim rule in India governed by Sharia law.It said an FIR was lodged against alleged officials, members and cadres of PFI, who were spreading extremist ideology across Tamil Nadu after setting up its state headquarters at Purasaivakkam in Chenna and offices in various districts of the state. Organization.
It said, "It is respectfully submitted that the leaders/cadres of PFI had formed this organization only to achieve the dangerous goal of 'Vision India 2047', i.e. making this country a nation inhabited by Muslims as per Sharia law. Be made governed."
