The court emphasizes compliance with constitutional safeguards and the gravity of the alleged offences, directing expeditious trial proceedings.
In a significant development, the Karnataka High Court has cancelled the bail granted to several accused in a high-profile case involving alleged conspiracy and dissemination of ISIS propaganda. The case, investigated by the National Investigation Agency (NIA), revolves around individuals purportedly aligned with ISIS ideology, planning violent terror attacks in India.
The court's decision came following appeals by the NIA against the orders of the Special Court, which had earlier granted bail to the accused on the grounds of non-compliance with statutory requirements for arrest. The High Court, comprising Justices H.P. Sandesh and Venkatesh Naik T., scrutinized the procedural aspects of the arrest, particularly focusing on whether the accused were informed of the grounds of their arrest in writing, as mandated by Article 22(1) of the Indian Constitution and Section 50 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, now Section 47 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
The High Court observed that while the constitutional requirement of informing the accused of the grounds of arrest is mandatory, mere oral communication followed by a written remand application suffices unless demonstrable prejudice is shown. The court noted that the alleged procedural lapse did not result in demonstrable prejudice to the accused, who were represented by counsel from the outset.
The NIA's case, registered in December 2023, involved individuals from Bellary, Mumbai, and Jamshedpur operating Telegram groups to spread ISIS propaganda and recruit youths for violent activities. The investigation revealed plans to create a network of recruits to establish Sharia rule in India, with alleged attempts to procure explosives and conduct trial blasts.
The High Court underscored the gravity of the offences and stressed the necessity for a swift trial. It directed the Special Court to expedite the proceedings and clarified that its observations were limited to the bail issue and should not influence the trial's merits.
This judgment reiterates the judiciary's stance on balancing constitutional safeguards with national security concerns, particularly in cases involving terrorism and national security.
Bottom Line:
Compliance with constitutional and statutory safeguards regarding informing arrested individuals of the grounds of arrest in writing is mandatory under Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 50 Cr.P.C. (now Section 47 of BNSS 2023). Mere absence of written grounds does not render arrest illegal unless demonstrable prejudice is caused to the accused.
Statutory provision(s): Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, Section 50 of Cr.P.C (now Section 47 of BNSS 2023), Sections 17, 18, 18B, 20 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.
