"We Find That Popular Front of India (PFI) Is Not A Terrorist Organisation": Supreme Court While Granting Bail To UAPA Accused

The Supreme Court while granting bail to an accused under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) observed that the Popular Front of India (PFI) is not a 'terrorist organisation'.

The Court noted that a 'terrorist organisation' in UAPA means an organisation listed in the first schedule or an organisation operating under the same name as the organisation was listed.

The Court was dealing with a criminal appeal filed by the accused being prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 121, 121A, and 122 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 13, 18, 18A, and 20 of the UAPA.

The two-Judge Bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih remarked, “There is not even an allegation in the charge sheet that the appellant was a member of any terrorist gang. As regards the second part of being a member of a terrorist organisation, as per Section 2(m), a terrorist organisation means an organisation listed in the first schedule or an organisation operating under the same name as the organisation was listed. The charge sheet does not mention the name of the terrorist organisation within the meaning of Section 2(m) of which the appellant was a member. We find that the PFI is not a terrorist organisation, as is evident from the first schedule.”

Senior Advocate Mukta Gupta represented the appellant/accused while Additional Solicitor General of India (ASGI) Aishwarya Bhati represented the respondent/Centre.

In this case, the appellant/accused applied for bail before the Special Court under the UAPA, which was rejected. Hence, the appellant and some co-accused applied for bail before the High Court. However, the prayer for bail made by the appellant was rejected, while bail was granted to a co-accused. The senior counsel for the appellant submitted that there is no material to link the appellant with the offences under the UAPA.

She pointed out that, at highest, the allegation is that the appellant’s wife was the owner of a building known as Ahmad Palace and that the appellant had clandestinely shown that premises on the first floor of the said building were given on rent to the accused no. 1. The allegation was that, the first floor premises were used for objectional activities of the organisation - Popular Front of India (PFI).

The Supreme Court in view of the above facts said, “When a case is made out for a grant of bail, the Courts should not have any hesitation in granting bail. The allegations of the prosecution may be very serious. But, the duty of the Courts is to consider the case for grant of bail in accordance with the law. “Bail is the rule and jail is an exception” is a settled law.”

The Court further said that it is not possible to record a conclusion that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against the appellant of commission of offences punishable under the UAPA is prima facie true.

“… there was no reason to reject the bail application filed by the appellant. … Before we part with the Judgment, we must mention here that the Special Court and the High Court did not consider the material in the charge sheet objectively. Perhaps the focus was more on the activities of PFI, and therefore, the appellant's case could not be properly appreciated”, it added.

The Court also noted that even in a case like the present case where there are stringent conditions for the grant of bail in the relevant statutes, the rule (Bail is the rule and jail is an exception) holds good with only modification that the bail can be granted if the conditions in the statute are satisfied and that the rule also means that once a case is made out for the grant of bail, the Court cannot decline to grant bail.

Accordingly, the Apex Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned orders, and granted bail to the accused.

Cause Title- Jalaluddin Khan v. Union of India (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 604)

Appearance:

Appellant: Senior Advocate Mukta Gupta, AOR Rizwan Ahmad, Advocates Shaikh Saipan Dastgir, Paras Nath Singh, Shakeel Ahmed, Nitya Gupta, and Himanshu Gupta.

Respondent: ASGI Aishwarya Bhati, AOR Arvind Kumar Sharma, Advocates Mrigank Pathak, Rajat Nair, Shagun Thakur, Chitrangda Rastvara, and Neelakshi Bhadauria.

Click here to read/download the Judgment