UNION OF INDIA REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY CHENNAI BRANCH versus BARAKATHULLAH ETC.

Citation: [2024] 5 S.C.R. 1011 · Decided: 22-05-2024 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BELA M. TRIVEDI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 6 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

* Author
[2024] 5 S.C.R. 1011 : 2024 INSC 452
Union of India Rep. by The Inspector of Police National 
Investigation Agency Chennai Branch  
v. 
Barakathullah etc.
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 2715 - 2719 of 2024)
22 May 2024 
[Bela M. Trivedi* and Pankaj Mithal, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
The respondents-accused were arrested for the alleged offences 
under section 120(b), 153(A), 153(AA) of IPC and Section 13, 17, 
18, 18(B), 38 and 39 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 
1957. The High Court released the respondents on bail subject to 
the conditions. Whether from the perusal of the chargesheet and 
other material/documents produced against the respondents, there 
are reasonable grounds for believing that accusations against the 
respondents are prima facie true, as contemplated in the proviso 
to sub-section (5) of Section 43D of UAPA.
Headnotes†
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1957 – ss. 13, 17, 18, 18(B), 
38, 39 and 43D – National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 – An 
FIR came to be registered on 19.09.2022 against the present 
respondents and other members and office bearers of PFI for 
the offences u/ss. 120(b), 153(A), 153(AA) of IPC and ss. 13, 
17, 18, 18(B), 38 and 39 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) 
Act, 1957 – The respondents-accused were arrested for the 
alleged offences – They filed their respective bail applications 
before the Special Court under the National Investigation 
Agency Act, 2008 (Sessions Court for Exclusive Trial of Bomb 
Blast Cases) and the same were dismissed – However, the 
High Court released the respondents on bail subject to the 
conditions – Correctness:
Held: It is quite well settled position of law that the chargesheet 
need not contain detailed analysis of the evidence – It is for the 
concerned court considering the application for bail to assess the 
material/evidence presented by the investigating authority along 
1012
[2024] 5 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
with the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. in its entirety, to form its 
opinion as to whether there are reasonable grounds for believing 
the accusation against the accused is prima facie true or not – 
The investigation disclosed that the activities and undeclared 
objectives of PFI had strong communal and anti-national agenda 
to establish an Islamic rule in India by radicalization of Muslims 
and communalization of issues – After recruitment as members 
of PFI, they were motivated towards violent terrorist activities by 
providing training through beginners course and advanced training 
courses – During the training courses, physical education classes 
were conducted in which members were taught to attack, assault, 
maim and murder with bare hands – The training was also given 
as to how to use weapons like knives and swords and how to hurl 
bombs – There is no need to elaborate on the allegations made by 
the protected/listed witnesses stating the role and involvement of 
each of the respondents, who were either members or the office 
bearers of the PFI – Suffice it to say that, there is sufficient material 
in the form of statements of witnesses and other incriminating 
evidence in the form of digital devices, books, photographs etc. 
collected during the course of investigation and relied upon by the 
appellant as recorded in the chargesheet, to form an opinion that 
there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusations 
against the respondents-accused are prima facie true – The Court 
at the stage of considering the bail applications of the respondents-
accused is merely required to record a finding on the basis of 
broad probabilities regarding the involvement of the respondents 
in the commission of the alleged offences – The High Court has 
committed gross error in not considering the material/evidence 
in its right and proper perspective – The alleged offences are 
under Section 18, 18A, 18B etc. – For the purpose of considering 
the offence under Section 18, the commission of terrorist act 
as contemplated in Section 15 of UAPA is not required to be 
made out – In the instant case, this Court is satisfied from the 
chargesheet as also the other material/documents relied upon 
by the appellant that there are reasonable grounds for believing 
that the accusations against the respondents are prima facie 
true and that the mandate contained in the proviso to Section 
43(D)(5) would be applicable for not releasing the respondents 
on bail – Thus, the impugned order passed by t

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