Mere Membership Of A Banned Organization Doesn't Justify Bail Rejection When Trial Is Anticipated To Prolong: Patna HC
In a recent ruling, the Patna High Court has said that mere membership in a banned organization shouldn't be reason enough to deny bail, particularly when the trial is anticipated to be prolonged.The division bench of Justices Ashutosh Kumar and Alok Kumar Pandey said, “Merely being a member of a banned organization, would not justify rejection of bail when the Trial is likely to continue for...
In a recent ruling, the Patna High Court has said that mere membership in a banned organization shouldn't be reason enough to deny bail, particularly when the trial is anticipated to be prolonged.
The division bench of Justices Ashutosh Kumar and Alok Kumar Pandey said, “Merely being a member of a banned organization, would not justify rejection of bail when the Trial is likely to continue for a longer time.”
This ruling came in a batch of three criminal appeals filed under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, whereby 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 faced charges of direct association with the Popular Front of India (P.F.I.), an organization that had been prohibited in 2022. The prosecution contended that they were actively engaged in pursuing the organization's covert objective of fomenting violence to achieve their purported aim of reinstating Muslim rule in India.
The Court, however, after reviewing all the relevant evidence against the appellant, found it fitting to overturn the contested decision denying bail.
Consequently, the Court ordered the appellant's release on bail, provided he furnishes a bail bond amounting to Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Five Thousand) and secures two sureties, each in the same amount. The satisfaction of the Special Judge, N.I.A., Patna, is required for the fulfilment of these conditions.
This decision holds significance in light of a March 2023 key verdict by the Supreme Court, wherein it held that mere membership in an unlawful organization would be a UAPA Offence. The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices MR Shah, CT Ravikumar, and Sanjay Karol, also affirmed the validity of Section 10(a)(i) of the UAPA, which considers membership in an association declared unlawful as an offence.
While holding so, the Supreme Court overturned its 2011 rulings in cases such as Arup Bhuyan vs State of Assam, Indra Das vs State of Assam, and State of Kerala vs Raneef. Essentially, in
It may be noted that in its earlier judgments, the Supreme Court had held that mere membership in a banned organization is not adequate to constitute an offense under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967 or the Terrorism and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, unless accompanied by overt violent actions.
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