Supreme Court Issues Notice On Union's Plea Against Grant Of Bail In UAPA Case To Person Alleged To Be Foreign Citizen

The Supreme Court on Monday (May 13) issued a notice in Union's plea seeking cancellation of bail granted to the non-citizen alleged to have committed an offence under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.

The case relates to the grant of bail to the accused (a Srilanka Citizen as claimed by the Union) by the Madras High Court, noting the Union has no material except the intelligence report to prove that the accused is a Sri Lankan national and the High Courts had discretion to grant bail even to a person who is not an Indian Citizen under Section 43D (7) of UAPA.

“43-D (7) of the UA(P) Act, 1967, stipulates that bail cannot be granted to a person who is not an Indian citizen and has entered the country unauthorisedly or illegally…It is not as if there is no discretion given to the Court. The Court can grant bail even to a person who is not a citizen under extraordinary circumstances,” the High Court observed.

It is the prosecution's case (National Investigation Agency) that the accused had misused his liberty in various ways and had suppressed his nationality. It was submitted that being a Sri Lankan, the accused Rifas was not entitled to bail under Section 43D (7) of the UAPA.

Against the decision of the High Court, the Union preferred an appeal before the Supreme Court.

Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Aishwarya Bhati appearing on behalf of the Union stated that the accused/respondent had suppressed his nationality by not disclosing his Foreign Nationality of Srilanka. She contended that it was based upon the intelligence report of the NIA that the FIR was registered against the accused for suppressing the identity.

The bench comprising Justices Bela M Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal asked ASG Bhati to state if there's any material to substantiate the Union's claim that the accused/respondent is a Srilankan Citizen.

Responding to the bench's query, ASG apprised the court that the Union doesn't have the Sri Lankan passport of the accused but it is based on the NIA's intelligence report that the FIR was registered against the accused for suppressing his Srilankan identity by representing himself as Indian Citizen.

Further, the bench asked ASG if the accused was called upon by the Appellant to show his passport.

Denying the same, ASG informed the Court that it is due to the High Court's observation, that the accused wasn't called upon by the appellant, as the High Court stated that once the accused is out there arise no exceptional circumstances to call upon the accused to show his passport.

Based on the aforesaid submissions, the Court issued notice to the accused/respondent.

The matter is directed to be listed after 10 weeks.

Case Title: UNION OF INDIA Versus MOHAMED RIFAS @ MOHAMED RIGBAS, DIARY NO. - 13002/2024

Click Here To Read/Download Order