Individual Not Greater Than The Nation Where He Has Taken Birth: Karnataka HC Upholds Dismissal Of Bail Plea Of UAPA Accused
The Karnataka High Court has upheld the rejection of a bail application of an accused in UAPA case observing that whenever national interest is involved or a challenge is posed to unity, sovereignty and integrity of the nation, individual liberty recedes to background.
The Court said that individual or personal interest must yield to national interest.
The Court clarified that an accused can enforce liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution if he was arrested without due process of law. However, an application for bail must be decided by applying law relating to bail and not by applying Article 21 when criminal action was found to be in accordance with due procedure established by law.
A Division Bench of Justice Sreenivas Harish Kumar and Justice J.M. Khazi observed, “What Article 21 states is that personal liberty of a person cannot be curtailed without due process of law. Its meaning has been expanded, and no doubt a greater amount of sanctity is attached to it. But whenever national interest is involved or a challenge is posed to unity, sovereignty and integrity of the nation, individual liberty recedes to background. Individual or personal interest must yield to national interest. Individual is not greater than the Nation where he has taken birth.”
Advocate S. Balakrishnan appeared for the appellant, while Advocate C. Sachin represented the respondents.
The High Court dismissed the appeal challenging the rejection of the bail application of the accused facing charges related to alleged terrorist activities under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) in connection with a stabbing incident.
The case was being investigated by the National Investigation Agency (NIA). the NIA secured the presence of the accused and their interrogation revealed an alleged conspiracy to commit terrorist activities to disturb unity, security and sovereignty of India. Subsequently, FIR was registered under UAPA, Explosive Substances Act, and Sections 120B, 121A, 153A and 204 of the IPC.
The Court took note of statements from protected witnesses which alleged that the accused were influencing people to establish ‘caliphate’ in India, which was the basic ideology of the Islamic State (ISIS).
“It is not always necessary to obtain confession statement of an accused to implicate him. It is also not necessary that there must be recovery from an accused under section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. These are not sine qua non,” the Court clarified.
The Bench stated that regarding the applicability of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the Supreme Court in National Investigation Agency v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali (2019) made it clear in many decisions that a balance has to be struck between individual liberty and the societal interest.
The Court explained that of the materials against accused was put to analysis, it could be said that accusations against him would remain till they are contradicted or disproved by other evidence. “This satisfaction can be drawn by gleaning over the prosecution materials. Therefore bar contained in section 43D(5) of UA(P)A becomes applicable,” the Bench stated.
Consequently, the Court held, “Therefore the conclusion is that the NIA court has not erred in refusing bail to the appellant.”
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the appeal.
Cause Title: Arafath Ali @ Arafath v. National Investigation Agency (Neutral Citation: 2024:KHC:39825-DB)
Appearance:
Appellant: Advocate S. Balakrishnan
Respondent: Advocates C. Sachin; Special PP Prasanna Kumar P.
