Present The Accused Are Confined In Central Jail Jaipur) vs National Investigation Agency (N.i.a), Through Special Public

: Mr. Mohd. Tahir Mr. Mohd. Haris For Respondent(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- appellants against the order dated 14.11.2024 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-appellants. [2025:RJ-JP:34122-DB] (2 of 6) [CRLAD-121/2025]

2. Learned counsel for the accused-appellants submits that the accused-appellants have falsely been enroped in this case and they are languishing in Jail since 02.11.2023 i.e. for last around two years. He further submits that they have been implicated in this case by the N.I.A for the offences under Sections 153A, 120B of IPC and Sections 13, 18 & 18A of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (hereinafter to be referred as “UAPA Act, 1967”, without there being any material available on record against them. He further submits that the statements of accused- appellants have been recorded by the N.I.A. against their 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-appellants. He further submits that though, charges have been framed against them but the order framing charges has been challenged by them 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-appellants.

3. Learned counsel for the accused-appellants 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 [2025:RJ-JP:34122-DB] (3 of 6) [CRLAD-121/2025] 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. 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-appellants and submits that the accused- appellants are involved in unlawful activities and the protected witnesses have given statement against them. He further submits that after filing of the charge-sheet, the learend Trial Court has taken cognizance against the accused-appellants which has not been challenged by them before any superior Court. He further submits that based on the material available on record and after hearing the accused-appellants, the learned Trial Court framed the charges against the accused-appellants vide its order dated

19.10.2024 and the trial is going on. He further submits that in addition to other charges, the charge for the offence under Section 4/25 (1B)(b) of the Arms Act, 1959 has also been framed [2025:RJ-JP:34122-DB] (4 of 6) [CRLAD-121/2025] against the appellant No.2 by the learned Trial Court. 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 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 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 Hon’ble 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 Court in the matter of Mohammed Ammar Yasir Vs. The [2025:RJ-JP:34122-DB] (5 of 6) [CRLAD-121/2025] State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.11044/2023) decided on 01.11.2023 and the judgment passed by the Hon’ble 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.

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-appellants, which has not been challenged by them before the Competent Court. Further, after appreciating the [2025:RJ-JP:34122-DB] (6 of 6) [CRLAD-121/2025] evidence on record, the learned Trial Court has framed the charges for the offences under Sections 120B & 153A of IPC and Sections 13, 18 & 18A of UAPA Act, 1967 against the accused- appellant No.1 and for the offecnes under Sections 120B & 153A of IPC and Sections 13, 18 & 18A of UAPA Act, 1967 and Section 4/25 (1B)(b) of the Arms Act, 1959 against the accused- appellant No.2, therefore, at this stage it cannot be said that there is no prima facie material available on record against the accused-appellants.

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-appellants is 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 /14