NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY versus ZAHOOR AHMAD SHAH WATALI

Citation: [2019] 5 S.C.R. 1060 · Decided: 02-04-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.M. KHANWILKAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 12 judgment(s) · cites 7 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1060
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019]  5 S.C.R.
          NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY
v.
ZAHOOR AHMAD SHAH WATALI
 (Criminal  Appeal No.578 of 2019)
APRIL 02, 2019
[A. M. KHANWILKAR AND AJAY RASTOGI, JJ.]
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 – Chapters IV
& VI – ss.13, 16, 17, 18, 20 and 38-40 – Respondent was named as
Accused No.10 in the FIR registered for offences punishable
u/ss.120B, 121 and 121A of IPC and ss.13,16,17,18,20 and 38-40
of the 1967 Act – Respondent filed application for bail before the
District and Sessions Judge, Special Court (NIA), New Delhi –
Rejected – Order reversed by the High Court – On appeal, held:
Elaborate examination or dissection of the evidence is not required
to be done at the stage of considering the prayer for bail – Court
is merely expected to record finding on the basis of broad
probabilities regarding involvement of the accused in the
commission of the stated offence or otherwise – High Court
ventured into examining the merits and demerits of the evidence –
Question of discarding the document at this stage, on the ground of
being inadmissible in evidence, is not permissible – Issue of
admissibility of the document/evidence would be a matter for trial –
Taking into account the totality of the report made u/s.173 of CrPC,
the accompanying documents and the evidence already presented
to the Court, including the redacted statements of the protected
witnesses recorded u/s.164 of CrPC there are reasonable grounds
to believe that the  accusations made against the respondent are
prima facie true – Role attributed to the respondent is that of being
part of the larger  conspiracy and to act as fund raiser and finance
conduit – High Court erroneously proceeded on the premise that
the charge-sheet makes no reference to any other criminal case
against the   respondent – High Court adopted an inappropriate
approach whilst considering the prayer for grant of bail – Order
passed by the High Court granting bail to the respondent, reversed
– Order passed by the Designated Court rejecting the application
for grant of bail made by the respondent, affirmed – Penal Code,
[2019] 5 S.C.R. 1060
1060
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1061
1860 – ss.120B, 121 and 121A – Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1985 – Terrorist and Disruptive Activities
(Prevention) Act, 1985 – Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime
Act, 1999 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss.161, 164 and
173, 207 – Evidence Act, 1872 – s.34 – Bail .
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 – s.43D –
Application of – Held: s.43D applies right from the stage of
registration of FIR for offences under Chapters IV and VI of the
1967 Act until the conclusion of the trial thereof.
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 – Proviso to
s.43D(5) – Purport of – Discussed.
Bail – Grant of – Factors to be considered – Discussed.
Words & Phrases – “prima facie true”, in context of 1967 Act
– Meaning of – Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1  Matters to be considered for deciding an
application for bail (i) whether there is any prima facie or
reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed
the  offence; (ii) nature and gravity of the charge; (iii) severity of
the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) danger of the
accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail; (v) character,
behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused; (vi)
likelihood of the offence being repeated; (vii) reasonable
apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with; and
(viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail.
When it comes to offences punishable under special enactments,
such as the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967,
something more is required to be kept in mind in view of the
special provisions contained in Section 43D of the 1967 Act,
inserted by Act 35 of 2008 w.e.f. 31st December, 2008.  By virtue
of the proviso to sub-section (5), it is the duty of the Court to be
satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the
accusation against the accused is prima facie true or otherwise.
Under the special enactments such as Terrorist and Disruptive
Activities (Prevention) Act, 1985 (TADA), Maharashtra Control
of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (MCOCA) and the Narcotic Drugs
NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY  v. ZAHOOR AHMAD
SHAH WATALI
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1062
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019]  5 S.C.R.
and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, the Court is r

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.