Safiya Malik

A Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi comprising Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Amit Sharma has dismissed a bail application filed by Moirangthem Anand Singh, who was arrested under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code, the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA), and other laws. The court, sitting in hybrid mode, stated on 2nd April 2025, upholding the Special NIA Court's denial of bail issued on 24th August 2024.

The court recorded that the stringent prima facie test under Section 43D (5) of the UAPA was met and that the Appellant failed the tripartite test under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.).

Also Read: “Ph.D. Is an Essential Qualification Prescribed by AICTE”: Supreme Court Denies Higher Pay and Redesignation to Non-Ph.D. Teachers Appointed After 2000

The bail appeal was filed in the backdrop of escalating conflict in Manipur between the Meitei and Kuki communities. The Appellant, Moirangthem Anand Singh, was apprehended on 6th September 2023, along with four others, near Meitei Mayek High School while dressed in camouflage resembling Manipur Police uniform and allegedly in possession of prohibited arms and ammunition. The seized weapons were later confirmed through forensic examination to be among those looted during the 2023 Manipur ethnic violence from government armouries, including the Manipur Police Training College (MPTC), Pangei.

The FIR filed by the Manipur Police, No. 1234(09)023, was subsequently transferred to the National Investigation Agency (NIA) via a Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) order dated 21st September 2023. The NIA FIR, registered as RC-23/2023/NIA/DLI, invoked Sections 120B, 121A, and 122 of the IPC, and Sections 18, 18B, and 39 of the UAPA.

According to the NIA chargesheet filed on 7th March 2024, the Appellant, a former cadre of the proscribed People’s Liberation Army (PLA), was allegedly involved in organizing arms training for local youths, conspiring to incite violence, and communicating frequently with other accused individuals. The NIA asserted that he received an INSAS rifle and ammunition from another PLA cadre during an ongoing ethnic clash and later retained the weapon at his residence.

The Appellant was previously arrested in at least seven FIRs since 1997 under the UAPA for his alleged involvement with banned organisations, including PLA and Kangleipak Communist Party (KCP).

Arguments from the Appellant contended that he was acting as a village volunteer to protect the Meitei community, that no charge sheet was filed in the earlier FIRs, and that five other co-accused released on bail had not been re-arrested. It was also argued that his rearrest post-bail by a different agency was unlawful and that the transfer of the case to Delhi lacked jurisdiction due to the Manipur High Court setting aside a related procedural order.

The court addressed multiple preliminary objections before examining the merits. On jurisdiction, it noted: "while the High Court, through its final order, has set aside the Manipur Special NIA Court’s order dated 24th October, 2023, the underlying order dated 21st September, 2023 issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) [...] remains unaffected." Accordingly, the NIA retained its jurisdiction and authority to investigate and effect arrests.

On the issue of re-arrest, the court clarified: "while the two FIRs may be interrelated, they are distinct in scope and legal implications." The Manipur FIR pertained to a specific incident, whereas the NIA FIR concerned a broader transnational conspiracy involving Myanmar-based terror outfits.

Regarding unequal treatment of co-accused, the court held: "the discretion to arrest is the prerogative of the investigating agency, and judicial interference in such matters is unwarranted." It further noted that the Appellant had criminal antecedents and was found to wield significant influence, which may hinder the investigation.

Applying the twin-pronged test under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA, the court stated that prima facie materials substantiated the charges under Sections 18, 23, and 39. The chargesheet recorded: "accused mobilized local youth for armed training to escalate the ethnic strife in the state of Manipur [...] and retained the weapon and ammunition." The court also referenced forensic and call data record (CDR) analysis, which showed "163 calls between A-I & A-3 including several calls made on the date of their arrest."

On the tripartite bail criteria under Section 439 Cr.P.C., the court recorded the Appellant’s prior criminal record and potential to influence witnesses as grounds for rejecting bail. "There is reasonable basis, as discussed in the latter part of the judgment, to believe that if he is released on bail, he may influence witnesses and could even abscond."

The judgment cited multiple precedents, including Gurwinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2024) 5 SCC 403 and National Investigation Agency v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali, (2019) 5 SCC 1, affirming the principle that bail under UAPA is an exception and jail the norm when prima facie evidence exists.

Also Read: "No Agreement, No Eviction": Bombay HC Slams Developer’s ‘Backdoor’ Bid to Oust Tenants. Tenants Cannot Be Directed to Comply with What They Never Signed

Considering the totality of the circumstances, this Court is of the view that the Appellant is not entitled to bail at this stage upon weighing in the following factors:

1. The Prosecution has established a prima facie case against the Accused/Appellant, supported by material evidence indicating his involvement in the alleged offences.

2. The nature and gravity of the allegations levelled against the Appellant are serious, involving offences that have far-reaching implications for public order and national security.

3. The Appellant has failed to satisfy the parameters laid down under the tripod test in Section 439 of the Cr.P.C., namely the seriousness of the offence, the possibility of influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence, and the likelihood of fleeing from justice.

In view of the foregoing, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the Appellant at this juncture.

The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. All pending applications, if any, are disposed of.

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Appellant: Mr. M Gunedhor Singh, Mr. David Ahongsangbam, Mr. S Gunabanta Meitei, Mr. Rahul Kumar

For the Respondent: Mr. Rahul Tyagi, SPP; Mr. Mathew M. Philip, Mr. Jatin, Mr. Sangeet Sibou, Mr. Amit Rohila, Mr. Aniket Kumar Singh

Case Title: Moirangthem Anand Singh v. National Investigation Agency

Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC:2233-DB

Case Number: CRL.A. 918/2024

Bench: Justice Prathiba M. Singh, Justice Amit Sharma

[Read/Download order]