State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor vs For Appellant(s)

: Mr. Snehdeep Khyaliya, Spl.P.P. (N.I.A) assisted by Mr. Manish Parmar Mr. Siddharth Sharma Mr. Himanshu Choudhary HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL 27/08/2025 Order

1. The present criminal appeal has been filed by the accused- appellant against the order dated 05.01.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge (N.I.A. Cases), Rajasthan, Jaipur, (hereinafter to be referred as “the learned Trial Court”) whereby the learned Trial Court dismissed the bail application filed on behalf of the accused-appellant.

2. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant submits that the accused-appellant has falsely been enroped in this case and he is languishing in Jail since 10.02.2023 i.e. for last around two and a half years. He further submits that he has been implicated in this [2025:RJ-JP:34124-DB] (2 of 6) [CRLAD-49/2024] case by the N.I.A. for the offences under Sections 153A, 120B of IPC and Sections 13, 17, 18, 18A & 18B of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (hereinafter to be referred as “UAPA Act,1967”), without there being any material available on record against him. He further submits that the statement of accused- appellant has been recorded by the N.I.A. against his wishes forcefully. He further submits that the seizure memo has also wrongly been prepared by the N.I.A. during investigation and the N.I.A. has recorded the statement of protected witnesses forcefully against the accused-appellant. He further submits that though, the charges have been framed against him but the order framing charges has been challenged by him before this Court. He further submits that all the recovery witnesses are government employees, therefore, the recovery is also doubtful. He further submits that no committal weapon has been recovered from the accused-appellant.

3. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant relied upon the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Athar Parwez Vs. Union of India reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 3762, in the matter of Jalaluddin Khan Vs. Union of India reported in (2024) 10 SCC 574 and in the matter of Razi Ahmed Khan Vs. State of Maharashtra (Criminal Appeal No.4940/2024) decided on 02.12.2024, in the matter of Saddam Hussain MK & Ors. Vs. Union of India (Spl. Criminal No.11932/2024) and other connected matters decided on

15.07.2025 and another judgment passed by the Bombay High Court in the matter of Sayyad Faisal Sayyad Khaleel & Anr. [2025:RJ-JP:34124-DB] (3 of 6) [CRLAD-49/2024] Vs. The State of Maharashtra (Criminal Appeal No.358/2025) decided on 07.07.2025 and other connected matters, the judgment passed by the Telangana High Court in the matter of Mohammed Osman Usman Vs. the State (Criminal Appeal Nos.912,797 and 969 of 2023 along with other criminal appeal Nos. 57, 62, 61, 56 & 80 of 2024), the judgment of Patna High Court in the matter of Shahid Reza Vs. Union of India, through N.I.A (Criminal Appeal Nos.875/2024) and other connected matters decided on

17.12.2024.

4. Learned counsel for the N.I.A opposed the submissions made on behalf of the accused-appellant and submits that the accused- appellant is involved in unlawful activities and the protected witnesses have given statement against him. He further submits that after filing of charge-sheet, the learned Trial Court has taken cognizance against the accused-appellant which has not been challenged by him before any superior Court. He further submits that based on the material available on record and after hearing the accused-appellant, the learned Trial Court framed the charges against the accused-appellant vide its order dated 19.10.2024 and the trial is going on. He further submits that the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the accused-appellants are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

5. He further relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State Vot. Of NCT of Delhi Vs. Sunil and another reported in (2001) 1 SCC 652, in the matter of NIA Vs. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali reported in (2019) 5 [2025:RJ-JP:34124-DB] (4 of 6) [CRLAD-49/2024] SCC, in the matter of Arup Bhuyan Vs. State of Assam & Anr reported in (2023) 8 SCC 745, in the matter of Mazhar Khan Vs. N.I.A. New Delhi (SLP (Criminal) No.14091/2023 decided on 18.01.2024, in the matter of Gurwinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Anr reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 109, in the matter of Union of India rep. By the Inspector of Police, N.I.A, Chennai Branch Vs. Barakathullah & Ors (Criminal Appeal Nos.2715-2719 of 2024 arising SLP (Crl) No.14036-14040 of 2023) decided on 22.05.2024, in the matter of Firozuddin Basheeruddin and Ors Vs. State of Kerala reported in (2001) 7 SCC 596, in the matter of Yash Pal Mittal Vs. State of Punjab reported in (1977) 4 SCC 540 and in the matter of Mohammed Ajmal Mohammed Amir Kasab @ Abu Mujhahid Vs. State of Maharashtra and other connected matters reported in (2012) 9 SCC and another judgment passed by the Punjab and Harayana High Court in the matter of Suhail Ahmed Bhat Vs. N.I.A. New Delhi (Criminal Appeal No.483/2021) decided on 19.12.2022, the judgment passed by this High Court in the matter of Mohammed Ammar Yasir Vs. The State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.11044/2023) decided on 01.11.2023 and the judgment passed by the Delhi High Court in the matter of Jamsheed Zahoor Paul Vs. State of NCT of Delhi (Criminal Appeal No.51/2024) decided on 24.04.2024.

6. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the evidence of protected witnesses and material available on record before us. [2025:RJ-JP:34124-DB] (5 of 6) [CRLAD-49/2024]

7. Sub-Clause 5 of Section 43-D of the UAPA Act, 1967, reads as under:- “(5) Nothwithstanding anything contained in the Code, no person accused of an offence punishable under Chapters IV and VI of this Act shall, if in custody, be released on bail or on his own bond unless the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity of being heard on the application for such release: Provided that such accused person shall not be released on bail or on his own bond if the Court, on a perusal of the case diary or the report made under Section 173 of the Code is of the opinion that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against such person is prima facie true.”

8. In the present case, the learned Trial Court after considering the material available on record has taken cognizance of offences under Sections 120B & 153A of IPC and Sections 13, 17, 18, 18A & 18B of UAPA Act, 1967 against the accused-appellant, which has not been challenged by him before the Competent Court. Further, after appreciating the evidence on record, the learned Trial Court has framed the charges for the offences under Sections 120B & 153A of IPC and Sections 13, 17, 18, 18A & 18B of UAPA Act, 1967, therefore, at this stage it cannot be said that there is no prima facie material available on record against the accused-appellant.

9. So far as, the judgment rendered in the case of Athar Parwez Vs. Union of India reported in 2024 SCC Oline SC 3762 relied by the learned counsel for the accused-appellant is [2025:RJ-JP:34124-DB] (6 of 6) [CRLAD-49/2024] concerned, in our considered view, is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case as in that case charges were not framed by the learned Trial Court, whereas, in the present case, charges have already been framed by the Trial Court.

10. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case, gravity of offences, without commenting on the merits, in our considered view, the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

11. In that view of the matter, the appeal is accordingly, dismissed. (BHUWAN GOYAL),J (INDERJEET SINGH),J Upendra Pratap Singh /16