Delhi High Court Denies Interim Bail To PFI Chairman Under UAPA, Says Accused Yields Wide Influence

A Division Bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Amit Sharma were considering the appeal of O.M.A. Salam, PFI Chairman (appellant-accused), against the rejection of interim bail by the Special Judge, New Delhi.

Salam was arrested by the NIA for alleged terrorist activities under Sections 17, 18, 18B, 20, 22, 38, 39 of the UAPA. A day after his arrest by the NIA, a flash hartal was called in Kerala by the PFI.

A Division Bench of the Kerala High Court had declared the said hartal as illegal and unconstitutional on 23rd September, 2022. Despite the Court's order, there were road blockages, widespread violence and damage caused to the public and private property in Kerala. The Kerala High Court had held the PFI responsible for the violence and had imposed a fine of over Rs. 5 crores on the PFI.

On 27th September, 2022 the Government of India declared the PFI as an unlawful association under the UAPA for a period of five years.

Salam sought bail in order to meet his wife, who suffers from 'adjustment disorder with depressed mood (disorder)'. The appellant's daughter had passed away in an accident, and he claims that this caused his wife to suffer from extreme grief and various mental health conditions.

The High Court stated that “In the present appeal, the Court has to weigh the reasons set out by the Appellant on humanitarian grounds and the serious possibility of harm being caused to the general sections of the public, especially, in Kerala where the Appellant appears to be having a large following.”

The Court considered the present bail application based on the alleged activities carried out by the PFI. It noted “The allegations against PFI are that its prime objective as an organisation is to establish Sharia/ Islamic law in India.”

It observed that PFI is alleged to be engaged in activities of organizing terrorist camps, radicalizing Muslim youth against Hindus and inciting its members to join ISIS, among other things.

The Court remarked that the appellant is not an insignificant person in the PFI as he is the admitted Chairman of the organization and holds considerable influence within it.

The Court noted during the last hearing, it had asked the appellant on whether he would be willing to go for custody parole for a period of two weeks in Delhi so that his wife could travel to Delhi and meet him. However, the appellant chose not to opt for custody parole in Delhi.

In view of this, the Court remarked “This stand taken by the Appellant clearly shows that the intention of the Appellant is not to merely meet his wife but to visit the state of Kerala, which in the opinion of the Court, is fraught with severe risk and likelihood of unforeseen consequences considering the influence that the Appellant wields.”

The appellant contended that since the PFI was not declared as an unlawful organization when he was its Chairman, he deserved to be released on bail to be with his family in Kerala.

With respect to this contention, the Court cited Abubacker E. v. National Investigation Agency, 2024, where a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court denied bail to a member of PFI, who was suffering from cancer. The Court had noted that once an organization is declared as a terrorist organization under the UAPA, certain consequences may follow.

Referring to this judgment, the Court remarked “At this juncture, the defence cannot contend that the acts done by the association, prior to it being declared as unlawful must be disregarded. That would be against the legislative object of the UAPA.”

Further, the Court noted that the prescriptions of the appellant's wife show that the medicines have to be regularly taken on a long-term basis. It stated that her condition is “…neither debilitating nor of a nature which requires an urgent intervention.”

It stated that in the present case a situation of 'intolerable grief and suffering' or any extraordinary medical circumstances has not arisen, which could justify granting bail to the appellant. The Court also noted that the appellant's immediate family and his children are sufficient to take care of his wife.

On the risks of releasing Salam on bail, it observed that granting bail to him would entail chances of flight risk and influencing witnesses.

“Considering the facts of the present case as also the nature of influence the Appellant exerts, enlarging him on interim bail would not only entail flight risk but also the possibility of several witnesses being influenced in the present case.”

The Court thus denied interim bail to the appellant.

Case title: O.M.A. Salam vs. National Investigation Agency (CRL.A. 564/2024)

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 965