Mere Participation In Seminar On Islamic Literature By Itself Not Ground To Deny Bail Under UAPA: MP High Court Directs Release Of Three

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has granted bail to three men accused under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, observing that mere participation in a seminar on Islamic Literature does not by itself constitute an offence under UAPA's bail restricting provisions. 

The division bench of Justice Vivek Agarwal and Justice Ratnesh Chandra Singh Bisen observed that apart from participation in the seminar, the prosecution was unable to show any prima facie material to substantial allegations of involvement in terrorist activities. 

The bench said

"In terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Vernon (supra), as reproduced above, there is no credible case of conspiracy to commit offences enumerated under Chapter IV and Chapter VI of the UAPA Act, 1967. Therefore, mere participation in seminars by itself, cannot constitute an offence under the bail restricting Sections of the UAPA Act. We are of the considered opinion that bail can be granted to the appellants because admittedly the trial is going to take long time"

The accused men had approached the High Court challenging the order of the Special NIA Court, which rejected their bail applications. The accused men argued that the evidence collected by the prosecution was insufficient and alleged actions were largely based on speculation. 

The counsel for the NIA opposed the applications, claiming that the witness statements recorded under Section 161 and 164 of CrPC demonstrate that the accused were radicalised persons inclined to commit terrorist acts. The counsel further submitted that certain materials were recovered, including photocopies of Islamic Literature, reflecting their alleged mindset and intent. 

The bench, relying on the Supreme Court's case of Vernon v State of Maharashtra (2023) observed that unverified or weak evidence, including unsigned documents or their party communications, is insufficient evidence to establish guilt or justify denial of bail under the stringent provisions of UAPA. The Supreme Court had said that mere possession of literature even if it inspires or propagates violence by itself would neither amount to a 'terrorist act' within the meaning of Section 15 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 2002, nor any other offences under Chapters IV and VI of the Act. It had further said that "mere participation in seminars by itself" cannot constitute an offence under the bail-restricting sections of the UAPA, with which the petitioners therein had been charged.

The High Court also noted that the evidence submitted by NIA included only photocopies of certain documents. The bench held that mere possession of such material, without corroboration, could not establish involvement in terrorist activities. 

The bench further emphasised that the essential ingredients of a terrorist act under Section 15 of UAPA were not satisfied in the present case. For context, Section 15, in brief, defines a terrorist act as any act done with the intent to threaten the unity, integrity, security, sovereignty, or economic stability of India to create terror among the people. 

The court further highlighted that allegations of ideological inclination, without concrete proof of unlawful acts or agreement to commit such acts, cannot meet the threshold required to deny bail under UAPA. 

The bench, thus, granted bail to the accused men, noting that prima facie lack of credible evidence. 

Case Title: Sheikh Juned v NIA, CRA-8705-2024, Mohd Waseem v State of MP CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 13145 of 2024, and Mahd Kareem v State of MP CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 13275 of 2024

For Appellants: Advocate Saket Anand

For NIA: Advocates Deepesh Joshi and Qasim Ali

Click here to read/download the Order