'Prima Facie Attempt To Establish Mughal Order': MP High Court Upholds Order Denying Bail To Lawyer Booked Under UAPA

The Madhya Pradesh High Court refused to intervene with an order denying bail to a lawyer, after "prima facie" noting that as per the evidence an attempt was made to disrupt communal harmony in the society with an object of establishing a 'Mughal Order' which existed prior to British rule.The advocate, who is stated to have conducted legal awareness programs, moved the high court against rejection of his bail by the trial court. A division bench of Justice Vivek Agarwal and Justice Devnarayan Mishra in its order observed:“We have gone through the seizure memo and the seizure memo reveals that incriminating material like Books, CD, Computer, Pen-Drive, Bank-Account, Pamphlet, certain lectures and written materials have been seized from the house/office of the appellant which prima facie reveals that attempt is being made to cause disruption in the communal harmony amongst the members of the Society, so to achieve and object of establishing a Mughal Order as it existed prior to Britishers taking over Regin from the hands of the Mughals and started ruling the country before independence.”A criminal appeal was filed under Section 21 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 against the order passed by Special Judge, NIA Cases rejecting the lawyer's regular bail plea. The appellant was booked under IPC Sections 121-A (Conspiracy to commit offences punishable by Section 121-Waging or attempting to wage war), 153-A (Promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence. language, etc.), 120-B (Punishment for Criminal Conspiracy), 201 (Causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information, to screen offender) read with Section 13 (1)(b) (Whoever advocates or abets unlawful activity), 18 (Punishment for Conspiracy), 18-A (Punishment for organising of terrorist camps), 18-B (Punishment for recruiting of any person or persons for terrorist act) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). The Counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is an enrolled Advocate, working as a Volunteer with a Human Rights Organization and he conducts legal awareness program. It was contended that the appellant has not caused any act which may fall within the definition of unlawful activities as defined under UAPA. Therefore, he would not fall under the category of a member of unlawful association as defined in Section 2(p) of UAPA. It was further contended that no act of the appellant can be said to be 'Terrorist Act' as defined in Section 3(a) UAPA and therefore, his detention and denial of bail was arbitrary and illegal.The counsel further argued that the property seizure memo has no evidentiary value as the appellant was never taken to the place of seizure since he was already lodged in the jail.On examining the material on record, the Court opined that it is for the trial Court to decide on the basis of the evidence as to what is the material available to prove the charges which have been framed. The Court further said that the act of the appellant prima facie does not call for High Court's intervention without the completion of Trial."When we examined the material, then we are of the opinion that it is for the trial Court to decide it on the basis of the evidence as to what is the material available to prove or otherwise the charges which have been framed. But prima facie when examined, then the act of the appellant cannot be said to be such that calls for this Court's intervention without completion of the trial," the court said. Dismissing the appeal the bench, while noting that the trial is pending and parties are free to adduce their evidence, restrained itself from making any further comments on the merits of the case."at the same time, we feel that, for the present, application for grant of bail appears to be not matured. The judgment cited by the learned counsel for the appellant are distinguishable on their own facts…any observations advertently or inadvertently made herein, shall not come in the way of fair trial,” the Court added. Case Title: Wasid Khan Versus The State Of Madhya Pradesh, Criminal Appeal No. 2776 Of 2025Counsel for Appellant: Advocate Mohd. TahirCounsel for Respondent/State: Advocate Brahmadatt SinghClick Here To Read/Download Order

'Prima Facie Attempt To Establish Mughal Order': MP High Court Upholds Order Denying Bail To Lawyer Booked Under UAPA

Anukriti Mishra

Tags