CRIMINAL LAW – BAIL – UNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT, 1967 (UAPA) – Sections 20, 38, 39, 43D(5) – Indian Penal Code (IPC) – Section 120B – Constitution of India – Articles 14, 21 – Parity – Speedy Trial – Prolonged Incarceration.
(2025) 7 KCD 235 : 2025 KER 54793
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA
BENCH: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. V. JAYAKUMAR
CRL.A NO. 767 OF 2025; JULY 23, 2025
SEYID NABEEL AHAMMED v. UNION OF INDIA
FACTS: The appellant, Seyid Nabeel Ahammed (Accused No. 2), filed a criminal appeal against the order of the Special Court for Trial of NIA Cases, Ernakulam, which dismissed his bail application. The prosecution alleged that the appellant was part of an ISIS/IS-KP module that conspired to commit terrorist acts, target prominent individuals and religious places, and create communal disharmony in India. The module reportedly radicalized gullible Muslim youths and raised funds through criminal activities, including looting non-believers, based on the ‘Ghanimah ideology’. Specifically, the appellant was accused of being an active cadre of the Popular Front of India (PFI) and India Fraternity Forum (IFF), getting radicalized to violent pro-Jihadi ideologies (Jabath Al Nusrah, precursor to ISIS), conspiring to join ISIS in Syria, and upon failing, returning to India to establish an ISIS module in Kerala. He, along with others, allegedly pledged allegiance to ISIS, was appointed ‘Amir’ (leader) of the module, propagated ISIS ideology, and engaged in reconnaissance of Hindu temples and prominent persons for looting. The appellant was also implicated in a robbery of Rs. 30 Lakhs. He faced charges under Sections 120B, 153A of IPC and Sections 17, 18, 18B, 20, 38, 39, 40 of UAPA. The Special Court dismissed bail, concluding there was a prima facie case against him and the statutory embargo under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA applied.
APPELLANT’S CONTENTIONS: The appellant argued that he was entitled to bail on the ground of parity, as co-accused (Accused No. 1, 3, and 5) had already been granted bail, and the charges against him and Accused No. 1 were “exactly similar”. He further contended that his prolonged judicial custody (approximately one year and ten months) without the likelihood of the trial being completed in the near future (given 147 witnesses, voluminous documents, and ongoing investigation) violated his fundamental right to personal liberty and speedy trial guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution, particularly Article 21. He also claimed false implication and fabrication of evidence by the investigating agency.
RESPONDENT’S CONTENTIONS: The respondent, Union of India (NIA), argued that there was a prima facie case against the appellant and that bail could not be claimed as a matter of right on parity, especially under the UAPA. They submitted that the appellant stood on a “different footing” as he was alleged to be the leader of the group and that his antecedents suggested a likelihood of disturbing peace if released. They also cited his public display of the “one-finger salute” (associated with ISIS) and a voice clip expressing extremist views as evidence of his unwavering support for the organization. The serious nature of the offenses warranted dismissal of bail.
COURT’S ANALYSIS AND FINDING:
- Rule of Parity (Article 14): The High Court acknowledged that while there is no absolute rule mandating bail solely on parity, the concept emanates from Article 14 of the Constitution, ensuring equality before the law. The Court observed that the charges against Accused No. 1 and the appellant (Accused No. 2) were “exactly similar” as detailed in the final report. Since Accused No. 1 was released on bail after one year and eleven months of incarceration, and the appellant had been in jail for one year and ten months, the Court found no reason to reject the appellant’s bail on the basis of parity, absent any showing that the earlier grant of bail was based on erroneous considerations.
- Prolonged Incarceration and Speedy Trial (Article 21): The Court emphasized that the statutory restrictions under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA do not oust the ability of Constitutional Courts to grant bail based on the violation of fundamental rights under Part III of the Constitution. It reiterated that the rigour of Section 43D(5) would yield to the overarching mandate of Article 21, especially when the trial is inordinately delayed or incarceration becomes punitive. Considering that the appellant had been in custody for nearly two years, and the trial was unlikely to conclude in the near future due to the large number of witnesses (147), voluminous documents, and ongoing further investigation, his continued detention amounted to an unjust deprivation of personal liberty.
CONCLUSION: The High Court allowed the criminal appeal, set aside the Special Court’s order refusing bail, and directed the release of the appellant on bail. This decision was subject to stringent conditions, including executing a bond for Rs. 1,00,000 with two solvent sureties, restrictions on leaving the Ernakulam district, regular reporting to the National Investigation Agency (NIA), maintaining a single accessible mobile number, and refraining from tampering with evidence or engaging in similar offenses.
CITED CASES:
- Union of India v. K.A Najeeb [(2021) 3 SCC 713]
- Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra [2024 SCC OnLine SC 1693]
- Ashraf @ Ashraf Moulavi v. Union of India [2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 386]
- Harpreet Singh Talwar v. State of Gujarat [MANU/SC/0675/2025]
- Union of India v. Barakathullah [2024 SCC OnLine SC 1019]
- Sunil Batra v. Delhi Admn. [(1978) 4 SCC 494]
- Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India [(1978) 1 SCC 248]
- Tarun Kumar v. Assistant Director Directorate of Enforcement [2023 KHC OnLine 6995]
- Ramesh Bhavan Rathod v. Vishanbhai Hirabhai Makwana (Koli) and Another [2021 KHC OnLine 6243]
- Arvind Kejriwal v. CBI [2024 SCC OnLine SC 2550]
- Athar Perwez v. UOI [2024 SCC OnLine Sc 3762]
