Allegations under UAPA Act dismissed due to absence of incriminating material; bail granted with stringent conditions.
In a significant judgment, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has granted bail to Sheikh Juned and two other appellants accused of terrorist activities under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA). The court, comprising Justices Vivek Agarwal and Ratnesh Chandra Singh Bisen, ruled on April 27, 2026, that the absence of substantive evidence connecting the accused to the alleged offenses warranted bail, especially given the likelihood of a prolonged trial.
The appeals arose from an order by the Special Judge of the NIA Court, Bhopal, which had denied bail to the appellants based on accusations of radicalization and involvement in terrorist activities. The prosecution's case primarily relied on photocopied documents and statements under Sections 161 and 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which purportedly indicated the accused's inclination towards terrorism.
The High Court scrutinized the evidence presented and noted several admissions by the National Investigation Agency (NIA). It was acknowledged by the NIA counsel that no substantive material, apart from the alleged disclosure of mindset, was recovered from the accused. Furthermore, no intercepted communications linked the accused to any terrorist acts, thereby nullifying the applicability of Section 46 of the UAPA regarding evidence admissibility.
The judgment drew parallels with precedents set by the Supreme Court in similar cases. The court referenced the Supreme Court's observations in Vernon v. State of Maharashtra and Anand Teltumbde v. NIA, highlighting that mere possession of photocopied documents and participation in seminars do not constitute prima facie evidence of terrorist activities or conspiracy.
In light of the lack of incriminating evidence and the expected duration of the trial, the High Court decided to grant bail. However, the court imposed stringent conditions to ensure compliance with judicial processes. The appellants are required to furnish personal bonds of Rs. 2,00,000 each, surrender their passports, disclose permanent residential addresses, and seek court permission before leaving the country.
This judgment underscores the judiciary's commitment to uphold legal standards in evaluating evidence, particularly in cases involving severe allegations under the UAPA. It also reflects the balance between safeguarding individual rights and addressing national security concerns.
Bottom line:-
Bail granted under UAPA Act, 1967, when no prima facie material exists connecting the accused to the alleged offence, and trial is likely to take a long time.
Statutory provision(s): National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 Section 21(4), Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 Sections 13, 15, 18, 18B, 20, 46, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 Section 27.
