'Mere' Incarceration Of Two And A Half Years Not Grounds For Bail Under UAPA: Patna High Court
The Patna High Court recently held that cases involving threats to national security and public safety cannot be equated with ordinary criminal matters, and that “mere incarceration” of two and a half years cannot entitle an accused to bail where national security concerns are involved.A Division Bench of Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Justice Sourendra Pandey made these observations...
The Patna High Court recently held that cases involving threats to national security and public safety cannot be equated with ordinary criminal matters, and that “mere incarceration” of two and a half years cannot entitle an accused to bail where national security concerns are involved.
A Division Bench of Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Justice Sourendra Pandey made these observations while denying bail to an accused allegedly involved in planning to cause disturbance during the proposed visit of the Prime Minister to Patna.
According to the National Investigation Agency (NIA), a search of the appellant's premises revealed bank records, materials indicating association with members of proscribed terrorist organisations, evidence of financial assistance to them, and ideological support for their activities. The NIA alleged that the appellant was an ex-member of the banned Students Islamic Movement of India (SIMI) and, after the ban, played a key role in forming 'Wahadat-e-Islami Hind'. He was alleged to have collected funds from various sources and routed them to several convicted terror-accused lodged in different jails, acted as an intermediary for communication between imprisoned extremists and associates outside, and circulated radical literature to like-minded individuals.
The High Court examined the case materials and found that there were overwhelming documents and statements supporting the chargesheet, with specific allegations directly attributed to the appellant. It emphasised that under Section 43D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, bail must be refused if there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation is prima facie true. The Court observed:
“22. In our considered opinion, at this stage, this Court cannot come to a conclusion even prima facie that there is no reasonable ground for believing that the accusations against the appellant of raising funds for terrorist act, his association with the terror accused and convicts and providing financial assistance to them are not prima facie true. In fact, taking note of these aspects of the matter, this Court has rejected the prayer for bail of a number of co-accused in this very case...”
On the issue of delay in the trial, the Court noted that the appellant had been in custody for about two and a half years and that the trial was unlikely to conclude in the near future. However, it held that this period of incarceration, by itself, could not justify the grant of bail in a case involving allegations of potential threat to national security. The Court held:
“23. We have been informed that the appellant is in incarceration for about two and half years and the trial is not likely to be concluded in near future. First of all, our observation would be that mere incarceration of two and half years in the case of the present nature which involves a threat to the security of the nation and its citizens and which requires recording of evidence of large number of witnesses cannot be kept on equal footing with the other cases and mere period of incarceration of two and half years, at this stage, cannot be a good ground to grant bail to the appellant. Still, we hold an opinion that all endeavours be made by the learned trial court to conclude the trial as early as possible, preferably within a period of one year…”
Thus, the High Court dismissed the appeal and refused to grant bail to the petitioner, holding that the materials on record and the nature of allegations did not warrant his release.
Cause Title: Anwar Rashid v. Union Bank of India through the National Investigation Agency, Bihar
Case Number: Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 310 of 2025
Appearance: Mr. Mujahid Ahmad and Mr. Shams Akhtar appeared for the appellant. Dr. K.N. Singh, Mr. Arvind Kumar, Mr. Aayushman, and Mr. Paritosh Parimal appeared for the respondent.