Court emphasizes seriousness of charges under IPC, Arms Act, and UAP Act, citing lack of compelling humanitarian grounds for bail.
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed an appeal challenging the rejection of interim bail for Irfan Pasha, who sought permission to attend the 40th-day prayer ceremony of his deceased sister. The court upheld the decision of the Trial Court, which had previously permitted Pasha to attend the 10th to 13th-day ceremony but rejected the subsequent bail application due to lack of cogent reasons, flight risk concerns, and the gravity of the allegations.
Pasha, who has been in judicial custody for over nine years, is charged with serious offenses under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC, Sections 3 and 27 of the Arms Act, and Sections 15, 16, 17, 18, and 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. The appellant's counsel argued that the statutory bar under Section 43D(5) of the UAP Act does not preclude judicial discretion in cases of extreme hardship. However, the High Court found no compelling humanitarian grounds, noting the presence of other male family members to perform the rituals.
The High Court highlighted that the trial is at an advanced stage and emphasized the seriousness of the charges. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the Trial Court's decision as justified and not warranting interference.
Bottom line:-
Interim bail application under Section 439(1) of Cr.P.C. to attend 40th-day prayer ceremony of deceased sister rejected due to lack of cogent reasons, flight risk concerns, and seriousness of alleged offences under IPC, Arms Act, and UAP Act.
Statutory provision(s): Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 Section 439(1), IPC Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34, Arms Act, 1959 Sections 3 and 27, Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 Sections 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, Section 43D(5) of UAP Act.
