Per l lon'ble Sri Justice K. Lakshnnn) llcard Mr v. Raghunath. lcamed Scnior Counsr-l rcpresent ing

Petition under Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the Order dated 20.09,2024 Passed by the lV Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge cum Spl. Court for NIA Cases at Hyderabad in Crl. M.P. No. 1215o1 2024, arising outof Case in SPL. SC 1ol 2023 in Crime No. RC- 031 20221 NIA/ HYD, under Sections 1208, 153A of IPC and , 13 (1) (b), 18, 1BA, 1BB Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 at Police Station NIA Hyderabad, District Hyderabad by granting bail to the Appellant/Accused No.04 herein on regular bail. Counsel for the Appellant :SRl MOHD MUZAFFER ULLAH KHAN Counsel for the Respondents: P VISHNUVARDHANA REDDY, SC FOR NIA The Court delivered the following: Common Judgment - HON'BLE SRI JTJS'IICE K. LAKSHMAN AND IION'BI-E JUSTICE B.R. MADHUSUDHAN RAo CRIMI.\A[, AI'I'EAL Nos.923 & 924 OF 2025 ANI) 931 ()F 2024 COMMON JfIIX]MENT: (Per l lon'ble Sri Justice K. Lakshnnn) llcard Mr. V. Raghunath. lcamed Scnior Counsr-l rcpresent ing Mr.'f. Rahul, learned counsel lor the appcllants - accusetl Nos.2 and.l in Crl.A. No::.91-l and 92'l of 2025. Mr. Muzallerullah Khan. lcamed counsel firr the appellant - accused No.4 in Crl.A. No.9-l I ol'2024 and Mr. P. Vishnuvardhan Reddy- leamcd Special I'ublic l'roscr:utor lirr National Investigation Agency (NlA) appcaring on hchall ol' thc respondent.

2. 'l'hese Criminal Appeals are flled under Scction - 2 [ oi the National Invcstisation Agcncl (NtA) Act. 2008 bi' thc a;rpcllants hcrein. 'l'hc appcllants herein are arraigncd as accuscd Nos.2 kr 4 respectively in Spl. S.C. NO.01 ol'2023

3. tr/r</e inrpuencd ordcrs dated 02.06.2025. 2? \)7 .2025 and

20.09.2024 in (lrl.M.P.No.446 ol 2.025 in Spl. S.C. No 0;l of 2023. Crl.M.P. No.507 ol'202-5 in Spl. S.C. No.04 of 2023 encl Crl.M.l'} 2 KI ,J & BRMRJ Crl A No 921 of2025 & batch No. l2l5 o12024 in Spl. S.C. No.Ol of 2023. rcspectively, learned IV z\dditional Scssions Judgc - cum - Special Court lor NIA Cases. Nanrpalll'. Iilderabad (lbr short 'Designatcd Court'), dismisscd the bail applications fited by-. thc appellants.

4. 'fhe ollenccs allcged against the appellants herein - accused Nos.l arrd 3 arc under Scctions - l20B and l53A ol-lPC and Scctions l:l (l) (b). 17. ltt. l8-A and l8-B of the Unlawtul Activitics (l'revention) Act.1967 ( lirr shon 'llAl'4. 1967'), and the olfences allegcd against thc appcllant - accused No.4 are under Sections - l20f]. l2l(n). 153-A & l4l rcad with 34 IPC and Sections - l3(1Xb). 18-A & l8-tl ol'thc UAPA. 1967.

5. Ihe allegations levclled against the appellants herein arc as lblkxvs: i) With regard to accuscd No.2, he is the State General Secrctary ol' Popular [;ront ol India (PFI) Ibr 1'elangana. I{e u,as recruiting imprcssionablc Muslim Youth into Pltl b1" instigating them against thc leaders ol' Bharatil'a .lanata Pag, (BJP) / Rashtriya Su,al amsevak Sangh ( ttSS) and othcr [ lindu Organizations. He u'as rntrtiratirrg thesc Muslim Youth for violent .lihod and unlawful actir it(s. A f'ter rccruiting thcm into PF I. accuscd No.2 sent them to ---7 kl..J & BRlvlR.J Crl A No 9:l of2025 & baLh Terror Camps organized by PF'I at dillerent places ra'herein newly joined PFI Ivlemhers were given rveapons training and abetted to assassinatc the leadcrs ol BJP,4<SSiDurga Vahini/Shiva.ii Sena and other Hindu organizations by attacking them on vital bod) parts rvith dangerous rve:lpons such as knif'e and sickle ii) With regard to accused No.3, he is a hardcore PF I Cadre and Physical l:lfficicncy (PE) lnstructor for basic and advancc/secondary training course run by I'l:l in its temor carnps. He was impaning physical training to thc newly rccruitcd Ir mernbcrs u'herein hc trained them in thc usc of dangerous \!'eapons. such as klil'e. iron rods and sickle, bettcr known vyith the sccret terminologv of the three books i.e., Book-l, Book-2 and Book-i. to murder a person by attacking his vital body parts. It was revcaled liom the statements of witnesses that this training \\,ils being given as preparation to comnrit violent terrorist activities and assassinating the leadcrs of RSS/R.lPlBa.irang Dal. Durga Vahini and othcr Hindu orsanrzatrons. iii) With regard to accused No.4 he is also a hardcore PFI Cadre in.lagtial District and he was recruiting imprcssionablc Muslim Youth into I'}FI bv instigating them against the leadcrs ol'B.ll)/RSS and l }.L.I & I]RMR.J C'l A No 921 of202i & balch other Hindu organizations. [{e was motivating these Muslim Youth for violent Jihad and unlawful activitics. After recruiting thdm into PFI, accused No.4 sent them to the terror camps organized by PFI at dilfcrent places rvherein the newly joined PFI members were given weapons training and abetled to assassinate the lcaders ol BJI']/RSS/Durga Vahini/Shiva.ji Sena and other l{indu by attacking thcm on vital body parts with dangcrous wcapons, such as knife, iron rods and sickle.

6. 'fhe lnvcstigating Ofllccr filed charge shcel on 29.12.2022 by showing the appellants herein accuscd Nos.2 to 4 as 'absconding'. 7 . It is apt to note thal vide common j udgment dated

20.03.2024 in Crl.A.. No.9l2 ol 2023 & batch. this Court granted bail to accused Nos.5, 7, 16,24, 28 and 32 to 35 on irnposition of certain conditions.

8. Challenging the said orders. NIA pref-erred SLP (Crl.) Nos.5749 to 5756 of 2024 belbre the llon'ble Supreme Court. Vide crrder dated 30.04.2025, the Apex Court passed the lollowing order: ''1. lt is sought to be submitted by the leamed counsel, Mr. Annam Venkatcsh appearing lor the pctitioner - NIA that l KI J & ftRMR.J Crl .1 No 9ll o,:0li & barch the impugned order passed by the High Court is in the teeth of the judgments of this Court. particularly, in thc case of "Barkathullah Vs. Union of India (2019) 5 SCC I ". I{e lurthcr submits that thc trial is not being procecded as some o['the accused are absconding and the accused, whrl have been granted bail, keep on filing the applications one alter the other before the Trial Court as we[[ as in the High Cour1.

2. However, the said submissions have been refuted by the leamed senior counsel appearing lor thc respondenls.

3. Having regard to the seriousness ol'the allegatitrns and ro rhe ftct that thc F.I.R. is of thc date 04.07.2022 anJ thar there is rro progress made in the trial ol the case, rve hereby direct tlre 'frial Court to proceed lurther r.r'ith the trial in accordance with law, by separating the trial ol the accused. who are absconding, as may be legally permissibte. 4. It goes without saying that the petilioner shall be at liberty to file application for cancellation of the bail il thc resgrndcnts or any other accused, who are released on bail. do not cooperate with the Trial Court in procceding lirrther with the trial.

5. In order to see the progress of the trial, list thc nratlcrs in the first wcek ofAugust.2025.

6. It is l-urther clarified that thc impugned ordcr shall not be cited as a precedent lor granting bail to the other aceused til[ the pendency ofthese petitions." 6 KI,.J & RRMR.,' No 92:l of2oli & hatch Crl ^ Thereafter. vide order dated I 5.09.2025. thc Apex Court dismissed the said SI-Ps

9. The appellants herein filed bail applications before the Designated Court and the same rvere dismissed by the Designated Court vide the aloresaid orders. Challenging thc said orders, thc appellants prcferrcd the present appeals contending as tbllows: (i) They are also standing on thc very same lboting as that of accused Nos.5, 7, 16, 24. 28 and 32 to 35, and to maintain paritv. thcv are also cntitled lor hail; (ii) Vide commonjudgment dated 20.03.2024 passed by this Court granting bail to accused Nos.5, 7, 16,24,28 and 32 to 35 attained flnaliw in viei.v of'dismissal of SLPs flled by the NIA; (iii) The lnvestigating Olficcr in thc subjcct crime has already cornpleted in'u'estigation and laid charge sheet and also supplementary charge sheet against all the accused; (iu) Even according to NIA, investigation in the subject crime has been complctcd and there is no lirrther investigation: - [] J& NR\IR ] ( i \ N,"r:l (, lrr:i & oal.ir (v) Appellant - accused No.2 is in .iail tiorn 08.01.2015. appellant - accused No.3 is in jail lrorn 18.01 202,5 and appcllant - accused No.4 is in jail from 02.t)3.202-l: (ui) I'hcy are unaware of registration of the albrcsaid crinrc and pendenoy of the prescnt procecdings before thc Designated Court. Thereflore, thc Invcstigaling Agcncv cannot contcnd that thc appellants are absc{rnding: (r ii) Accuscd Nos.2 and 3 were surrendcrcd thentselvcs bcfirrc thc Dcsignated Court on 08.01.2025 and 28.01.ltt2-i respectively. The NIA Police arrestcd accused No..l on

02.03.2024. Therefore. thc Investigating -/\q,cnc\ carlnol conte'nd that the appellants hcrcin w'ere absconding: (r,iii) .\ccused Nos.2 and 3 are laymen and hail iiorn a respccted f'amity and are AC -l'echnicians. rihilc accuscd No.4 is also a layman and hails lrom a respcctcd lamily and is a busincssman doing his fumiture busincss: (i\) -l hcrc is no possibility of concluding trial in Spccial S.(' N o.4 of 2023 within near proximitl': and 1 .\ 8 KI. J & I}RMR.J crl A :\io 9:l oIloti & batch (x) Without considering the said aspccts. t,ide the afirresaid ordcrs. the I)esignatcd Court dismisscd the bail applications filed by them.

10. Whereas. the NIA has tlled counter contcnding that the appellants herein - accuscd Nos.2 to 4 arc standing on a dill'erent lboting. Reward of Rs.2.00 lakh was declarcd by thc NIA against cach of the absconding accuscd through rr idc publiciti. With great dilliculty, the NIA Police arrcstcd accusod No.4 in a remote village of' Kadapa Distriot. Therc arc serious allcgations against the appcllants hereitr. Accused No.4 was involved in three more criminal cascs. In thc e\,ent ol rclease of thc appellants on bail. therc is evcry possibility ol thcir absconding and in such an evcnt thc Dcsignated Cou( may not be in a position to complcle trial in the prcsent casc. Considering thc lact of absconding of thc appcllants herein. thc Designated Cou( has alrcady split up the casc and assigned as Special S.C. No.4 ol

1023. On arrcsting of accused No.rl and on surrcndering of accuscd Nos.2 and 3. the split up Spccial S.C. No.4 ol'2023 was mergcd u,ith thc original Special S.(i. No. I of 202i. On considcration ol'thc said rusl)!-cts or1lv. thc I)csierratcd Ctiurt disrnissetl the bail applications -T () KI I& NRMR J Crl^ Nor)2:l oa20:; & hat.h fitcd by'the eppellants. There is no error in it. Therefbrc. NIA sought to disrniss the appeals. I L Both leanred Senior Counsel appearing for acclrsed Nos.2 and l. lcanred counsel appearing for accused No.4 and leamed Special Public l'rosecutor fbr NIA made their submissions extensively. 'lhey havc also placed reliance on thc principle laid down in Jalaluddin Khan v. [.]nion of lndiar: Athar Parwez v. Union of India! and [Jnion o[ India rep.by the Inspector of Police, Nl(],, Chennai Branch v, Barakathullah etc.3. ll. ln thc light ol the afbresaid submissions. it is apt to notc that thc oflenccs under Sections - 1208 and l53A oflPC and Scctions - 1-l (l)(b,). 17. 18. l8-A and l8-B of the UAPA, l9(r7 arc alieged againsl accused Nos.2 and 3, while the olfences uncler Scctions -

12011. i2l(A). l5l-n & 14l readwith34 IPCandSections- l3(l)(b). Itl-A & I 8-B ot'the LIAPA, 1967 are alleged against accuscd No.4 I -1. [t is the case ol the NIA that a raid was conducted in the house of accused No.l by the police of VI Town Policc Station. N izarralrad on 01.1)1 .2022 and found relevant literaturc which is 201{ l0t I l0l l INSC 60.I lN\C 99t tN\C J5 2 t0 KL.' & BRMR.J Crl A No 921 of202i & barch against the intemal security of India and the same was banned. l'herefore, a case in Crime No.l4l of 2022 was registerbd by the said police under Sections - 1208, 121A, l53A and l4l read with 34 of IPC and Section - 13 (1) (b) of UAPA Act was registered against accused No.l and 26 others. In the light ofseriousness ofallegations, keeping in view intemal security ol thc Country, investigation of the said case was entrusted to NIA by the Ministry ol Homc Aflairs, Covemment of India vide order F.No.l10l 1/73 /2022/Nl A. datcd

25.08.2022. Pursuant to thc said proceedings, the NIA re-registcred a case in RC-03/2022NINI1YD for the aforcsaid offences.

14. As discussed above, the Investigating Olficer on completion of investigation laid charge shect against eleven (11) accused including the appellants herein on 29.12.2022 by showing the appellants herein as 'absconding'. NIA has also filcd supplemcntary charge sheet on 16.03.2023 against accused Nos.32 to 36. The off'cnces alleged against accused Nos.2 and 3 are under Sections - l20B and l53A ofIPC and Sections - 13 (l) (b), 17, 18, l8-A and l8- Ilof theUAPA, 1967 underSections- 1208, l2l(A), l5i-A& l4l read with 34 IPC and Sections - l3(lXb), l8-A & l8-B of the LIAPA. 1967 against accused No.4. T'he present appeals are hled under [t J & I}RIIIRJ Cn A No9:iof :(rl5 (.ar.h Section - .l I ol the NIA Act, 2008. Therefore, this Court has to considcr thc firllou ing tu in conditions: ( i) Pror rdirrq an opportunitv to the Public Prosccutor ol' bcins h,.:arc orr the application fbr rclease: and (ii) (iourt has to eivc a finding that there are rcasonable grounds firr helis'ing that thc accusation against such pcrson is prlrra Jhcic lruc. in tcnls ol Scction - 1-l-D (5) of' the LIAPA Act. l()67. rvhich is cxtractcd as urrdcr: "l-lD. !lodified application of certain provisions of the ('ode. ( l) x.xx\x (2)xxxxx (3 ) xxx\\ (4) xxx\x (5) Nonr ithstantling anlthing contained in the Code. no ncrson accused olan offence pur-rishable under Chaptcrs lV arrd VI ot'this Act shall. if in custody'. be relcased on hail or trrr his oivn klnd unlcss the Puhlic Prosecutor has been i:i',en an opportunitl' of being hearcl on the application tirr such release: I'rovided thirt such accuscd person shall not bc rcleascd on hail or on his orvn bond if the Court. on a pcrrrsul ol the casc diary or the repo( made under seclion 173 ol'the Code is ol'the opinion that thcre are t2 KI .J & ARMR.J (lrlA No 921ol l0li & batch reasonahle grounds tbr believing that thc accusation against such person is prlrza. litcie true. " I-i. In thc prcscnt case. this Court put thc NIA on notice. On rct'e rpt ol'thc noticc in the albresaid th'cc (03 ) appcals. NIA has also ll ictl countr-rs- s-\'uopsis and rvritten ar-quments- 'fhis Courl hcard Mr l). \'ishnLlarcll-ran Reddy. leamcd Spccial I)ublic l)rosecutor lbr NlA. I lris irrst condition has bcen complicd $ ith

16. U ith resard to sccond condition. as discussed ahorc. tlre ail;':aticns lcrellcd against the appellants arc as statctl abor,c. l'his ( t'trr1 r'irlr, c()nunon -iudgnrcnt datcd 20.03.2024 in Crl.A. No.9l2 of l0ll & batch. grantcd bail to accused Nos.5. 7, 16.24,28 and i2 to -15 on imposition ol'certain conditions. Challenging lhe said common .judurrcnt. the NIA lilcd SLPs and the same were dismissed by the ,\pcx Ctrurt vide order dated 15.09.2025. Thus. the said common iudgrncnt passed by this Court granting bail to accused Nos.-5. 7. 16.

24. lti and 32 to 35 has attained linality. I)lacing reliance on the said conu.lorl .ludgment. the I)csignatcd Court granted haiI to accused \t,s.l. 17. 29. 3l and 36 on imposition ol certain conditions. ('halle-ngirrg thc said order granting bail to accuscd Nos.l. 17. 29, 3l run,-l -1(r br tlre l)csignatcd Couftc. the NIA has not preterred anl __Jl - I-i I( I,.J A BRMR.J Crl A No 9)i of2025 & barch { appeal. J'hcrctore. thc appcllants herein are also secking bail on parity Il . L(:anr!-d Spccial Public Prosccutor lor NIA ,rpposed thc present appeals contending that the appellants Al'e standing o11 dill'erent fi:oting since thcy ivere absconding earlier. They havc not co-operated r.'ith thc Invcstigating Officer during the course ol investigation. 'fhercforc. thc Investigating Ollicer laid charge sheet against theni br shorving thern as 'ahsconding'. Thc L)esignated Court has alreadf issued Non-Bailable Warrant (NBW) against accused No.z1. With great difliculty on nraking hectic efforls, the NIA Policc arrested accuscd No.,l onll' on 02.03.2024 and, thcrcafter, accused Nos.2 irnd I u'ere surrcndered before the Designatcd Court. Therelore, thc), cannot seek thc hail on the ground of 'parity' with other ascused.

18. Whercas. Ieanrcd scnior counsel fbr the appellants would submit that the appellants are unaware of pendency of the aforesaid crime and also the proccctlings betbrc the Designated Oourt 1 Spl.S.C. No. I ol 2021. 't'hercfbre. tlre NIA cannot contend that the appellants abscondcil. ['hev x ould lurther subrnit that accuse:d Nos.2 l+ KI,.J & BRMR.I Crl.A No.92l of2o25 & batch and I on cominq to knou, about pendency of the proceedings in the prcscnt crse surrendercd themselves before thc Dcsigniited C'our1 on ()8.01.2025 and 28.01 .2025 respectively. I 9. [n the light of the aloresaid submissions, it is apt to note that as stated abovc, thc police of VI Town Police Station, Nizamabad. ctrncluctctl a raid in the house of accused No.I on 04.07.2022 and fbund rclcvant litcraturc which is against the intemal security ol'India and thc samc rvas hanned. l-herelbre, a case in Crime No. l4l o12022 ,uvas registered by thc said police under Sections - 120B, l2lA, l53A and 14l read with 34 olIPC and Section - 13 (1) (b) o1'tlAPA Act rvas reqistcred aqainst accused No. I and 26 others. As pcr the charge shcet. in one ol-thc hand-written documents (classmate note book) scized fiom the housc ol accused No.l. the name of accuscd No..l is mentioncd. wherein it is written that accused No.4 is the South Telangana Secrctarv. Admin. Team Member in .Iagtial and nerv FA (Final Assessmcnt) ('lass Taker. During house search ol accused No.4. one pocket diary suspected to contain his hand-writing rvas also scizcd containing, sonre hanthvrittcn notes on two pages. On one ol the pagcs. 'First' is s'ritlen on top undcr which the sunre points are - KI ,I& BRMR.J ( r ,\ No 923 of2025 & barch written which are told in the tlrst class of radicalization lor recruiting persons into PF-l

20. It is also apt to notc that thc policc have raidcd t{re house of accused No.l and seized certain docurncnts. Basing on the said information. the1, havc oonducted search ol house of accused No.4 I hcreforc. ar:cused No.4 cannot contend that he has no knowledge of about registr;.rtion of present crime hr, the l)olice and cntrustment ol investigation to NlA. T'hough thc albrcsaid crimc rvas initially rcgistered hy VI l orvn ['olicc ol'Nizarnabad. thc investirration o1- the said crime was entrusted to NIA on ).6 118.2022 in terms o1'order dated

25.08.2022 issued bl the Ministry of Honrc Affairs, Covernment of India. Accused No.4 rvas absconding. 'fhc Investigatins Officer in the said crime has filed charge sheet on 29.12.2022 shou ing accused No.4 as 'absconding'. NIA has also armounced a reu,arcl of lts.2.00 lakls on absconding accused each including accused No.4. The Designated Court also issued NBW against accused No.4. E,ven then, accused No.4 clid not surrendcr belore the Dcsignated L-oLrrt and co- operate rvith the said Court in proceeding with trial. 'l-hc said fact was brought to the notice ol'thc Ape.x Couft while hearing tlie aforesaid SLPs tlled by the NIA. Vide order dated i0.04.2025. the Apcx Couft .- \ l6 KLJ & BRMR,J Crl.A. No.923 of2o2i & barch directed the Designated Court to proceed further with trial in accordance rvith larv by separating the trial of, the accused, who are absconding, as may bc legally permissible. Accordingly. the Designated Court split thc aforesaid Special S.C. No.l of 2023 against .the appellants and assigned another Special S.C. No.4 of 2023. -l'hcrcaftcr. on irrrcst ol'accuscd No.4 and on surrcnder of accuscd Nos.2 and 3, the said Spl. S.C. No.4 of 2023 was merged with the original Spl.S.C. No. I ol 2023. Thus, accuscd No.4 did not co- operatc $ith thc lnvcstigating Olficer during the course ol invcstigation and thc Dcsignated Court during the course of trial. l-horcfirrc. hc absconded ltonr 29. 12.2022 till 02.03.2024. On considcration of the saicl aspects only, thc trial Court dismissed the bail application lited by accused No.4.

21. With reqard to accused Nos.2 and 3, it is apt to note that accused No.l is the Statc (lcncral Secretary of the I'FI tbr '[elangana 'Ihe allcgations levelled against him are that he was recruiting imprcssionable Muslim Youth into PFI by instigating them against the leadcrs of' thc ll.lPIRSS and other Hindu Organizations. He rvas rnoti\.atirrg these Muslinr Youth lbr violent Jihad and unlawlul actlvrl res. Afler recruiting thern into PFI, accused No.2 scnt thcm to t1 tit t& tlRMRJ 1 rl .\ No 921of202i & ba(ch 'lerror Carnps organized by I'Fl at di(Ierent places. Ihere is also an allegation that he has collected nroneS' and deposited into his Stsl A/c No.622i8165610. Hc has receivcd Rs.-.i.1 [akis fionr PI-l's SBI. Chandrayangutta A/c No.3295662l0tt2 hctsecn August. 20I7 and March, 202 l. He has utilized the said anrount for running thc teror camps ol PIil. Protected witnesses, rvhose staterncnts \\cre recorded undcr Section 164 (4) ol Cr.P.C.. also statcd the said lacts. His name q,as rnentionecl on the cover ol'threc notc-pads/d iaries scizcd lrom thc house of accuscd No.l on 04.07.2022.

22. In the charge sheet, it is specificalll' nrentioncd that the Call Details Rcco'd (('DR) analysis ol accused No.l rcvcalcrl that he u'as in contacl with accused Nos.l.3 to 6. 17.24.28 and 2(). l hcrefore. accused No.ll cannot contend that hc has no krror, ledge about registration r,l the aloresaid crintc b1' VI -l orvn Policc Station, Nizamabad, and, thereafter entrustment ol'investigation to NIA and pendency of present case hefbre the l)esignatcd Cour1. He caunot contend that he surrendered befbre the l)esignatcd ('ourt on

08.01 .2025. l8 KL,J & BRMRJ crl A No.92l 0f2025 & balch

23. With regard to accused No.3. the allegations lcvelled against him are that he is a hanlcore I'Fl Cadre and PE Instructor for basic and advance/secondary training course run by PFI in its terror camps. Accuscd No.3 rvas imparting physical training to the newly recruiled P|l memhers s,hercin hc trained them in the use of dangerous weapons. such as knife. iron rods and sickle. beftcr known with the secrct tcrnlinokrqv of the three books i.e., Book-I, Book-2 and Book-3, to murdcr a pcrs()n by' attacking his vital body parts. The protected witnesscs also statcd thc afirresaid flacts. His CDR was also collected which would revcal that lrc ,uvas in touch with accused Nos.1.

2. 17 and 31. 'fhcrclbrc. accused No.i cannot contend that hc was unaware of rcgistration o[' crimc by VI Town Police Station and, thereafter, entrustmcnt to NIA Policc and pendency ol present proceedings belore the I)csi,c.nated Court

24. As discussed abor.c. the PFI rvas banned on 27.09.2022 bt, way of issuing Notillcation. On consideration of the said aspects and also provisions ol- thc NIn. the allegations levelled against them, principle laid dorvn by the Apex Court and various l:ligh Courts vide common judgment dated 20.03.2024 in Crl.A. No.9l2 of 2023 and batcli, this Courl grantecl bail to accused Nos.5. 7. 16,24,28 and 32 to -7 t9 NI.II RIiillR,J Crl \ N,' ,li oa:0:j & balch 3-5 on imposition of certain conditions. In the said cornnl()n iudgmcnt. this Court also considered the lact that as on the date ol'participation of the accused in acts alleged to be illegal as PF I Mcnrbers. I'F I r.vas ncrt banrred as it was banned only on 27.09.2022 br thc Central Govemment. l'his Court also considered the fact that thev were arrested hy thc police; they were taken into policc custody and internrgatcd at lellgth. The entire investigation rvas cornpletcd. thc Investigating Ollicer laid charge shect and supplcnrcntary chargc shccts against thern by NiA. The accused thercin rr,crc arrestcd on

06.07.2022, 19.09.2022 and 22.09.2022 respcctivcll . Ihcy' rverc in iail. 'l-he Designated Court is not going to completc triril in the said Spccial S.C. in the near proximity. On considcration of' the said aspects, r,lde common judgment dated 20.03.2024. this ( ourt granted bail to accused Nos.5, 7, 16,24,28 and 32 to 35. Whercas. in the present cas(. accused No.4 was absconding lnrnr the date ol- registration of crime by V[ 1-own Policc Station. Nizantabad and thereafter entrustment of investigation to NIA and tiling of chargc sheet on 29.12.2022. It is not in dispute that NIA anrrounccd Rs.2.00 lakhs re* arcl on cach of absconding accuscd includin_c accused No.4 It is also not in dispute that he was arrested only on t)2.0.i.2024 by, I 20 tt_,J & 8Rt!1R,J CrlA No 921of?olt & batch NIA Police in a renrote villagc ol- Kadapa District, Andhra Pradesh State. A search was conducted in thc house ol accused No.4. Therefore, he cannot contend that he is unaware of pendency of the present proceedings. Thus. this Court is of the considered view that accused No.4 has absconded intentionally, did not co-operate with the Invcstigating Olficer and thc I)csiqnatcd CoLrrt. ln Iact. hc is rcsident of Islampura of Jagtial and NIA amcstcd him in a rcmote village ol Kadapa. Thcrefore, he cannot clairn parity rvith other accuscd

25. With regard to accuscd Nos.2 and -i. they were also absconding for the albresaid period. I lorvevcr. they have surrendered on their own belore the f)esisnatcd Court on 08.01.2025 and

28.01 .2025 respcctively. l'hel n'ere not in a position to explain the date and source ol knou,ledge o1' pendency ol the albresaid proceedings. As discussed above. thel cannot contend that they are unawilre of registration ol' crime bl VI 1'orvn Police Station of Nizamabad, entrustmcnt ol thc same to NIA and pendency of present proceedings before the l)csignated Court etc. T.hcy were absconding during pendency of crime and during pendency o1'thc Special S.C. No.4 of 2023 intentionally. They have not co-operated rvith the Investigatine Olllcer in concludins. invcstigation and u,ith the -- KI ] & ARMR.] crlA \o 9:l ollo-li & hatch I)csignated C'ourt. Accused No.2 has received an anrount ol Ils.l.l lakhs fionr PIrl account lrom August, 201 7 to March, 202 I and utilized lirr running terror camps. By the said date. thc afbresaicl crimc rvas rcgistered. investigation was entrustcd to NlA. Jhcrelirre. accused No.2 cannot contend that he is unaware ol the prescnt proccedinus.

26. Accused No.3 is also in touch with accusetl No.2.4 uncl othcr accused and CDR collected and analyzed would lcvcal thc said fhct. l'hcrefirrc. he cannot contend that hc is unawarc ol the prcsent ploceedings. Hc has also absconded intentionalll'. 'fhus. hoth accuscd Nos.2 antl 3 cannot claim parity along with othcr rccusetl.

27. At the cost ofrepetition, it is apt to note that pursuant to ttre dirccti<rns of the Apex Court dated 30.04.2025 in SLI'} (Crl.) Nos.5749-5756 ol' 2024, the Designated Court split up the Spccial S.[]. No. I o12023 against the appellants herein and assigncd Spl.S.C No.-l oi'202i. and on arrest of accused No.4 and surrentlcr of- accusetl Nos.2 and 3. the said Spt.S.C. No.4 of 2023 was mcrged rrith Spl.S.C No.I ol'2021. It is also not in dispute that accuscd No.4 rvas involi,cci in threc (0.3) more cases. It is the contention of leamed counscl lbr I 22 KLJ & BRMR.J CrlA No (2l of202i & barch accused No.4 that out of thc said three (3) crimes, trvo (02) crimes were quashed by this Court in Crl.P. Nos. 1337 and 3547'o12025.

28. In Jalaluddin Khanr, the Apex Court hcld in paragraph No.2l , which is as under: "21. Before we part with the Judgment, we must mention here that the Special Court and the l{igh Court did not consider the material in the charge sheet objcctively. Perhaps the focus was more on the activities of' I)FI, and therefore, the appellant's case could nol be propcrly appreciated. When a case is madc out lbr a grant ol bail. the Courts should not have any hesitation in granting bail. The allegations of the prosecution may be very serious. But, the duty of the Courts is to consider the case for grant of bail in accordance with the law. "Bail is the rule and jail is an exception" is a settled larv. Even in a case like the present case where there are stringent conditions lor the grant of bail in the relevant statutes, the same rule holds good with only modification that the bail can be granted if the conditions in the statute are satistled. The rule also means that once a case is made out for the grant ol-bail, the Court cannot decline to grant bail. [l the Cou(s start denying bail in deserving cases, it will be a violation of the rights guaranteed under A(icle 2l ofour Constitution.".

29. Placing reliance on thc aforesaid judgment, the Apcx Court in Athar Parwez2 held as under: ,2 ,/ I - I RI..J & I]RMR.J crl A No 9ll oilrlli & hnlch "2 7. 'l-he Court had lurther gone to the extent o l' saying and ri,ehtly so that in the charge sheet there is no allegation that thc Appcllant rvas a member of a terrorist gang or organisalion. It is worth mcntioning here that the PFI ol rvhich thc Appellant was a member has not beetr declared a terrorist organisation within the meaning of Section 2(m) ol' the tlAPA. 1967 . It was also found that the PFI is not nlenlioncd as a terrorist organisation in the first schedule of' LIAPA. 1967. The charge sheet and thc statement of' rvitness'Z'when seen as it is, it would not be possible to rccord prima facie finding that commission of offencc under thc UAPA, 1967 would be attracted as there are no reasonablc grounds lor believing that the accusations arc prinra lacic correct."

30. While granting bail to accused Nos.5, 7, 16, 24,28 and i2 to 35 in Crl.A. No.9l2 of 2023 & batch, this Court also considered the principle laid down by the Apex Court in Barakathullahs. 3 t. tt is a settled proposition of law that while considerine bail applications ol co-accused, the Court must maintain consistenc)' in its approach and adhere to the principle of parity. The said principle, flowing lrorn Article l4 ol the Constitution of lndia" which mandates that similarlv situated accused, against whom the allesations, nature of evidence, and role attributed are identical, should ordinaril_v rcceive l.t I\I .] & IJId\{R.J Irl .\ Ni,9] l of l0l5 & batch .l similar treatment in the matter of bail. The test of parit1,, however, is not mechanical but comparative, it requires the Courf to asscss whether the factual foundation, evidentiary material, and degree of participation of the applicant and other relevant circurnstances are substantially the same as those of the co-accused who has been granted bail. Where such identity exists, denial of bail to one while granting it to another would amount to arbitrariness and ofl-end the guarantee of equality before law.

32. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tarun Kumar r,. Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcementa, has authoritatively clarified that parity, though a relevant consideration is not an inflexible rule of law. The Court held that "while applying the principle ol parity, the focus must be upon the role attached to the accused whose application is under consideration." Parity does not extend to cases where the role, conduct, or antecedents of the applicant are materially distinct, such as abscondence, non-cooperation with investigation, or additional incriminating material found during inquiry. Therefore, though earlier orders of bail in favour of co-accused may guide judicial discretion, ' 202.i INsc l006 I they cannol compel an identical outcome unless the factual parity is 25 TI J & BRMIIJ ( rl A No 921 ol-2tllj & balch complete and bona fide. Relevant paragraphs from the judgment are extracted below " 19. It is axiomatic that the principle of parity is based on the guarantee of positive equality before law enshrined in Article 14 of the 20 Constitution. Horvcver. il any illegality or irregularity has been cornnritted in lavour of any individual or a group of inrlividuals. or a wrong order has been passed by a .juclicial lbrum. othcrs cannot invokc the jurisdiction of the higher or superior court for repeating or mu ltiplying the same irregularity or illegality or for pa-ssing sirnilar rvrong order. Article l4 is not meant to perpctuate the illegality or irregularity. If there has been a benefit or advantage conferred on one or a set ol people by any authority or by the court, u,ithout legal basis or justification. other persons could not claim as a rnatter ol right the benefit on the basis of such wrong decision.

10. It is also tlilficult [o countenance the submission of learned Counsel Mr. Luthra that the investigation qua the appellant is complete and the trial of the cases likely to take long time. According to hirn the appellant ought not to be incarcerated indefinitely mercl",' because the investigation is kept open with regard 1o thc other accused. In this regard, it may be note(l that the appellant has not been able to )6 l\I .J & BRMR.J C.l Noi)21ol l0lj & bat.h !r overcome the threshold stipulations contemplated in Section 45 namely hc has lailed to prima lacie pror-e that he is not guilty of the alleged olfence and is not likely to commit any ollence while on bail. It cannot be gainsaid that the burden ol proof lies on thc accused lor 2l the purpose of the condition set otlt in the Scction 45 that he is not guilty ofsuch oflfbnce. Of course. such discharge of burden could be on the probabilities. nonetheless in the instant case there being sufficient material on record adduced by the respondent showing the thick involvemcnt ol thc appellant in the alleged oflencc of moncy laundering undor Section 3 of the said Act, the Court is not inclined to grant bail to the appellant." 3J. l'herefore, the appellants herein having absconded during pendency ol crime and the present Special S.C. No. I ol' 2023 tronr

29.12.2022, cannot claim 'parity' with other accused, n'horn this Court and the Designated Court granted bails. There is every possibility of the appellants absconding from trial in which event the Designated Court will not be in a position to proceed wilh trial in Spl. S.C. No. I ol 2023. Therefore, on consideration of the said aspccls only, the Designated Court dismissed the bail applications liled by the appellants herein - accused Nos.2 to 4. There is no error in it. .I I - )7 KI .J & BRM&J ( rl ,\ ),Jo.921 of2025 & balch appellants lailed to make out any case to grant bail to them. Thus, the presenl appeals are liable to be dismissed.

14. The present Criminal Appeals are accordingty dismissed. However, this order will not preclude the appellants in approaching the Designated Court renewing their request for bail showing change of circumstances and it is for the Designated Court to consider and dispose ol the same strictly in accordance with law. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, it'any, pending in the appeals sl'rall stand closed. SD/- N.SRIHARI DEPUTY REGISTRAR @ :SECTION OFFICER I //TRUE COPY// To, NIA Cases at Hyderabad '1. The lv Additionar Metropolitan sessions Judge cum special court for the 2. The Superintendent, Central prison, Chanchalguda, Hyderabad 3. One CC to SRI T RAHUL, Advocate tOpUCl 4. One CC to SRI MOHD MUZAFFER ULLAH KHAN, Advocate [OpUC] 5. One CC to SRI P VISHNUVARDHANA REDDY, SPL PP FoR NIA oiTUC] 6 Two CD Copies 8) ADK/PSI- HIGH COURT DATED:0911012025 COMMON JUDGMENT CRLA.No.9Z3 & 924 OF 2025 AND 931 OF 2024 DISMISSING ALL THE CRLA o\r 1*E S ( 0 { N0tJ Xgi I ''t hF.i'){;C rt€-D (f) It i ,il