Madras High Court Denies Bail To UAPA Accused, Rejects Claim That Potassium Nitrate, Sugar & Batteries Were For Agricultural And Daily Use

Though the accused argued that potassium nitrate, sugar and batteries were purchased for agricultural and daily use, the bench of Justice Anita Sumanth and Justice Sunder Mohan rejected the argument. The court held that though the items taken separately would not be of much consequence, the prosecution case was that the items were used for operating an IED as a preparation for violent jihad.

“According to the appellant, the purchase of potassium nitrate was innocuous as it is essentially a fertiliser used in agriculture. Likewise, sugar and batteries are items of daily use. We reject this argument as, while the aforesaid items separately taken may not be of much consequence, the case of the prosecution relates to the items taken together for operating an IED as a preparation for violent jihad,” the court said.

The court was hearing a petition filed by Syed Ali against an order of the District and Sessions Judge (Special Court) under the National Investigating Agency Act, rejecting his bail.

The petitioner was arraigned as the 13^th accused in a case registered by the Kochi Branch of NIA under Sections 120-B, 471 and 201 IPC, Sections 18, 38 & 39 of UAPA and Sections 4 & 5 of the Explosive Substances Act. According to the prosecution, the petitioner was involved in a terror conspiracy in support of ISIS and Daesh and had purchased Potassium Nitrate, Sugar and other substances for operating IED as preparation for jihad and for furthering the activities of the aforesaid organisations.

The court had previously dismissed a bail plea of the same petitioner in 2024, during which the court recorded that a prima facie case had been made out. The court had also taken note of witness depositions speaking about the secret meetings between the petitioner and others in relation to ISIS, travel plans to Bangalore for performing Hijrah to establish ISIS in India, and destruction of pen drives containing incriminating materials.

The petitioner again approached the Special Court seeking bail, which was dismissed by the court. Against this, the petitioner had approached the High Court.

The petitioner submitted that the bail rejection order was cryptic, contained no discussion on the submissions and failed to consider the case in proper perspective. The petitioner also argued that he was arrested on December 21, 2020, and though charges were filed around that time, there had been no progress in the matter thus far.

The petitioner thus argued that there was no justification for the prosecution to keep the petitioner incarcerated on one hand, and not proceed with the trial on the other hand. The petitioner also alleged that no prima facie case had been made against him.

The prosecution, on the other hand, submitted that the allegations against the petitioner were prima facie found to be true and thus the detention was proportionate to his role.

The court noted his involvement in the offence and rejected the argument that there was no prima facie case. With respect to the duration of incarceration, the court took note of the submission made by the prosecution that the cognisance had been taken by the Special Court, charges were framed, and the trial had commenced. The prosecution also informed the court that all efforts would be taken to complete the trial within a period of 6 months.

Taking note of the affidavit, the court was not inclined to entertain the bail plea and dismissed the same.

Counsel for Appellant: Mr. I. Abdul Basith

Counsel for Respondents: Mr. R. Karthikeyan Special Public Prosecutor for NIA Cases

Case Title: B. Syed Ali @ Zubair @ Anees @ Abu backer v Union of India

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 407

Case No: CRL A No 202 of 2026