Court Directs Expedited Trial as Bail Denied Due to Lack of New Evidence and Compliance with Constitutional Norms
In a significant development in the ongoing investigation into alleged terrorist activities linked to the Islamic State Khorasan Province (ISKP), the Karnataka High Court has dismissed the appeal for bail by Mr. Irfan Nasir, also known as IRFI. The division bench comprising Justice H.P. Sandesh and Justice Venkatesh Naik T. pronounced the judgment on January 29, 2026, upholding the decision of the Special Court for NIA Cases.
The appeal, filed under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, sought to overturn the Special Court's order dated April 15, 2025, which denied bail to Mr. Nasir. The appellant was charged under multiple sections of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, and the Indian Penal Code, following his alleged involvement in radicalizing and recruiting individuals to join ISIS.
The High Court, emphasizing the necessity of demonstrable change in circumstances for successive bail applications, found no such change since the last bail rejection. The appellant's counsel had argued that the delay in trial violated the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution. However, the court noted that the delay was largely attributable to the defense's requests and not the prosecution's fault.
Furthermore, the court addressed the appellant's claim of non-compliance with Article 22(1) regarding the communication of arrest grounds. It referenced the Supreme Court judgment in Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India, clarifying that the requirement to furnish written grounds of arrest applies prospectively from October 3, 2023. Since Mr. Nasir was arrested on October 7, 2020, before this mandate, the oral communication at the time of arrest sufficed.
The bench also dismissed health-related grounds for bail due to the absence of supporting evidence. While declining the bail, the court instructed the Special Court to expedite the trial, emphasizing the prosecution's readiness for a swift proceeding.
The judgment underscores the balance between safeguarding personal liberty and addressing national security concerns, reiterating the judicial precedent that successive bail applications necessitate new evidence or changed circumstances.
Bottom Line:
Bail application under UAP Act rejected due to lack of change in circumstances, compliance with constitutional safeguards, and absence of health-related evidence.
Statutory provision(s): Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, Section 43D; Constitution of India, 1950, Articles 21 and 22(1); National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, Section 21(4); Indian Penal Code Sections 120B and 125; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 173
