UAPA Case: Karnataka High Court Upholds Rejection Of Alleged PFI Members' Default Bail

The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a petition filed by five alleged members of the banned organisation Popular Front of India, (PFI), and upheld the order of Special court designated to try offences under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, which rejected their application for grant of default bail. A division bench of Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Vijaykumar A Patil found no merits in the habeas corpus petition filed by Mohammad Bilal and Others.The Central Government had in September 2022 banned the organisation. The petitioners were arrested on October 12, 2022 for the offences punishable under sections 121, 121A, 121B, 153A 5 and 109 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Section 13 and 18(1)(B) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, on the allegation that they were engaged in unlawful activities. The Magistrate court in December 2022 committed the case to the Special Court in Bengaluru. By its order dated January 9 this year, the special court in Bengaluru extended the custody of the petitioners for a period from 90 days to 180 days. Further, it rejected their applications seeking default bail and held that the Special Court has jurisdiction to try the offences. The petitioners contended that investigation has been conducted by State Police and there is no notification under Section 22(1) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 constituting a Special Court. Therefore, by virtue of Section 22(3) of NIA Act, the Court of Session in Mangalore alone had the jurisdiction to deal with the matter and the order of extension of remand and the prayer for grant of default bail could have been considered only by the Court of Session in Mangalore. Thus it was contended the orders passed by the Special Court (Bengaluru), are per se without jurisdiction.The petition was opposed by the prosecution submitting that the Central Government had issued a notification in December 2012 under Section 11(1) of the Act notifying the Court of 49th Additional City Civil Court and Sessions Judge, Bangalore City to be Special Court.The State Government had established the Court to deal with the cases under the NIA Act and therefore, the said order has to be treated as an order under Section 22(1), it was contended. The Special Court alone has the jurisdiction to deal with the matter and Section 22(3) of the Act has no application in the fact situation of the case and the case cannot be tried before the session court in Mangalore, it was argued.Findings: The bench noted that the NIA Act was enacted with a view to constitute an investigating agency at the national level to investigate and prosecute the offences relating to sovereignty, security and integrity of India, etc.. “Section 11 of the Act deals with power of the Central Government to designate Court of sessions as Special Courts, whereas Section 22 of the Act deals with power of the Government to constitute the Special Courts,” it noted.Referring to the Apex court judgment in the case of Gautam Navlakha, the bench held “The writ of Habeas Corpus is maintainable in the contingencies envisaged in paragraph 63 of the judgment.” Then referring to the order issued by the State Government establishing the Court of Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge (Bengaluru) as Special Court, the bench said “From perusal of the Government order dated 19.07.2012, it is evident that an order is an order under Section 22(1) of the Act and therefore, the Special Court has jurisdiction to deal with the order of extension of remand as well as the applications seeking default bail.” It then held “The provisions of Section 22(3) of the Act has no application to the fact and situation of the case. The contention urged by the petitioners that the orders of extension of remand and order rejecting applications for default bail are without jurisdiction and cannot be sustained.” Accordingly it disposed of the petition.Case Title: Mohammad Bilal & others And Police Sub-Inspector Law and Order & others. Case No: W.P.H.C. NO.10 OF 2023Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 159Date of Order: 21-04-2023Appearance: Advocate Mohammed Tahir for Petitioners. SPP V.S. Hegde a/w Thejesh HCGP for respondent.Click Here To Read/Download Order

UAPA Case: Karnataka High Court Upholds Rejection Of Alleged PFI Members' Default Bail

Mustafa Plumber

Tags