'Providing Legal Help To PFI Cadre Not A Terriorist Act': Patna HC Grants Bail To Advocate Accused Of Endangering Security Of India

The division bench of Justices Ashutosh Kumar and Alok Kumar Pandey said, “Giving legal help to one who required such help was only his bounden duty as an Advocate. No words or sign of the appellant/Nooruddin Jangi @ Advocate Nooruddin Jangi, either in written or oral forms, was brought on record to indicate that he promoted enmity between different groups which could have been prejudicial to national integration. None of the protected witnesses have stated anything against him except for his association with P.F.I.”

The above ruling came in a set of three criminal appeals filed under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, while the Court granted bail to an Advocate accused of offences under Sections 120, 120B, 121, 121A, 153A, 153B, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The accused-appellants, namely Jalaluddin Khan, Athar Parwez, and Advocate Nooruddin Jangi, have been accused of active involvement with the Popular Front of India (P.F.I.), an organization that had been banned. The prosecution alleged that they were associated with the organization's clandestine objective of instigating violence to achieve their purported goal of reinstating Muslim rule in India.

Following a police raid, documents pertaining to unlawful activities were reportedly discovered in the rented premises of the accused. The charges levelled against the appellants included participating in activities with the hidden agenda of causing violence and actively working towards the re-establishment of Muslim rule in India.

Despite their denial of involvement, the Special Court under the National Investigation Agency (NIA) rejected their bail applications. In response to this, the accused-appellants decided to challenge the decision by seeking relief through the High Court.

The appellants asserted that the discovery of purported 'hate literature' did not establish a case against them under the charged sections. They challenged their affiliation with P.F.I. and emphasized that engaging in legal representation and participating in scholarship interviews should not be deemed terrorist acts.

The Advocate-appellant also argued that he is a dedicated legal practitioner, representing clients across various Courts of law. He highlighted that his arrest in Lucknow (Uttar Pradesh) occurred while he was there to appear before the District & Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, PMLA, Lucknow on behalf of his client.

The NIA informed the Court that documents recovered from the appellants' premises, Jalaluddin Khan and Athar Parwez, revealed an estimation suggesting that even if 10 per cent of the total Muslim population supported P.F.I., it could lead to the subjugation of the majority community.

The court after examining the police papers, the charge sheet and the statement of the protected witnesses, produced in a sealed cover, upheld the rejection of bail for Jalaluddin Khan and Athar Parwez, citing factors such as the severity of the charges, the likelihood of the offence being repeated, and the danger of tampering with evidence.

The court, upon reviewing the challenged orders, determined that the Special Court had duly considered essential factors concerning the appellants, namely Jalaluddin Khan @ Md. Jalaluddin and Athar Parwez.

These factors included the nature and seriousness of the charges, the potential severity of punishment upon conviction, the risk of absconding if granted bail, their societal status, the likelihood of the offense recurring, reasonable concerns about evidence tampering, and the potential obstruction of justice.

Consequently, the court held the Special Court's decision to deny bail for Jalaluddin Khan @ Md. Jalaluddin and Athar Parwez, found no fault in the Trial Court's conclusion on this matter.

The court observed that there was insufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case against the appellant, Advocate Nooruddin Jangi. The Court clarified that engaging in activities such as offering legal assistance or participating in scholarship interviews, even for members of the P.F.I., did not meet the criteria for designated terrorist acts as per the prescribed categories.

The Court said, "Terrorist organizations and Terrorist acts have been defined under the 1967 Act. The Act provides for punishment for terrorist acts, for raising funds for terrorist acts or for participating or organizing such acts as also for giving support to any Terrorist organization. But providing legal help to the P.F.I. cadre or interviewing candidates for selecting them for given scholarship would never fall in any one of the proscribed categories."

The Court also said that for a few isolated materials, showing his participation in protest marches, organized under the P.F.I. banner, there was nothing on record which would prima facie establish that he had been or was indulging in activities which would constitute overwhelming public functionaries by means of criminal force.

The Court has instructed the appellant, Nooruddin Jangi, to surrender his passport if he possesses one, and if it has not been impounded by the Investigating Officer (I.O.) of the National Investigation Agency (N.I.A.).

Additionally, the Court has mandated that the appellant must regularly report to the I.O. overseeing the case as and when required. He is also required to provide his mobile telephone number, along with his current address, to both the I.O. and the Special Court for contact purposes.

Furthermore, the Court has directed the appellant to promptly inform both the I.O. and the Special Court of any changes to his telephone number or current address. Importantly, he is explicitly prohibited from influencing or intimidating any potential Prosecution Witness (P.W.) and is forbidden from tampering with the prosecution's evidence in any way.

“If there is any breach of any one of the conditions, it will be open for the N.I.A. to apply before the Special Court for the cancellation of his bail,” the Court said while disposing of all the 3 appeals.

Counsel/s For the Appellant/s : Mr. Syed Masleh Uddin Ashraf, Adv. Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. Shivaditya Dhari Sinha, Adv. Mr. Abhijeet Gautam, Adv. Mr. Amarjeet, Adv.

Counsel/s For the Respondent/s : Dr. Krishna Nandan Singh, ASG

Case Title: Jalaluddin Khan @ Md. Jalaluddin vs The Union of Indias

LL Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Pat) 142

Case No.: Criminal Appeal. 514 of 2023