Bureau Prayagraj. Madhya Pradesh High Court granted bail to three people accused under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). The court said that mere participation in a seminar on Islamic literature does not in itself constitute an offense under the provisions barring bail under the UAPA.
The division bench of Justices Vivek Agarwal and Ratnesh Chandra Singh Bisen said that apart from attending the seminar, the prosecution had not been able to produce any prima facie evidence in support of the serious allegations of involvement in terrorist activities.
The bench said: “As per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vernon (supra), as stated above, no credible case of conspiracy to commit the offenses listed under Chapter IV and Chapter VI of the UAPA Act, 1967 is made out.
Therefore, mere participation in the seminar cannot in itself constitute an offense under the bail prohibiting sections of the UAPA Act. “We are of the considered opinion that the appellants may be granted bail considering that the trial will take considerable time.”
The accused had approached the High Court challenging the order of the Special NIA Court in which their bail applications were rejected. The accused argued that the evidence collected by the prosecution was insufficient and the charges against them were largely based on speculation.
NIA’s counsel opposed these applications, claiming that the statements of witnesses recorded under sections 161 and 164 of CrPC show that the accused had radical ideologies and were inclined towards carrying out terrorist activities. The lawyer further said that some material was recovered, including photocopies of Islamic literature, which reflected his alleged mindset and intention.
The bench relied on the Supreme Court case Vernon vs. State of Maharashtra (2023) to say that uncorroborated or weak evidence, including unsigned documents or communications between third parties, cannot be a proper ground for convicting someone or refusing to grant bail under the stringent provisions of the UAPA.
The Supreme Court had held that mere possession of literature—even if it incites or propagates violence—would not in itself amount to a ‘terrorist act’ within the meaning of Section 15 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 2002, nor any other offense under Chapters IV and VI of that Act.
Comments are closed.