Madhya Pradesh High Court Dismisses Appeal of Accused Under UAPA
- Post By 24law
- January 9, 2025

Kiran Raj
The Madhya Pradesh High Court, in its judgment dated January 6, 2025, rejected the criminal appeal filed by Mohd. Shahid Khan under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency (NIA) Act, 2008. The Court upheld the order passed by the trial court on April 12, 2024, rejecting the bail application of the accused. The bench, comprising Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice Anuradha Shukla, found sufficient prima facie evidence against the appellant under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA).
The appellant was arrested on May 27, 2023, in connection with Crime No. RC-14/2023/NIA/DLI registered at the NIA Police Station, Delhi. He was charged under Sections 120-B, 153-A, 153-B, and 295-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 13, 17, 18, 20, 38, 39, and 40 of the UAPA. The prosecution alleged that the appellant, along with co-accused persons, conspired to promote the ideology of ISIS and plotted terror activities, including an attack on the Ordnance Factory in Jabalpur.
The investigation revealed that the accused were influenced by the teachings of Islamic orators, including Zakir Naik, and radicalized through videos and lectures. They allegedly distributed pamphlets resembling ISIS flags and shared incriminating material on social media platforms to promote their ideology. The appellant was accused of being an active participant in these activities, including planning violent attacks and recruiting like-minded individuals.
The appellant contended that he was falsely implicated, and the prosecution's case was based on suspicion. It was argued that the appellant's physical disability rendered him incapable of participating in the alleged activities. The defense submitted that the prosecution failed to establish the necessary intent required under Sections 38 and 39 of the UAPA. Citing judgments, including Sudesh Kedia v. Union of India (2021) and Sheikh Javed Iqbal v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2024), the counsel argued that mere association with a banned organization was insufficient to attract UAPA provisions.
The prosecution, represented by the counsel for the NIA, opposed the appeal, asserting the seriousness of the charges and the appellant’s active involvement in promoting terrorism. It relied on witness statements and recovered materials, including digital evidence and derogatory literature, to establish the appellant’s complicity. The prosecution further argued that the statutory restrictions under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA prohibited the grant of bail unless the court found no prima facie case against the accused.
The Court examined the materials on record, including the charge sheet and evidence presented by the prosecution. It referred to the principles laid down in Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali v. NIA (2019), emphasizing that the test for prima facie truthfulness under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA requires consideration of the prosecution's evidence as it stands. The bench observed, “The material on record, when taken at face value, establishes the appellant’s active participation in unlawful activities aimed at promoting the ideology of a terrorist organization.”
The Court rejected the appellant’s contention regarding his physical disability, noting that the allegations against him involved intellectual and ideological participation rather than physical acts. The bench further held that the statutory restrictions under the UAPA must be applied strictly, and the evidence prima facie established the appellant’s intent and involvement in the alleged activities.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court stated, “Considering the nature of the allegations and the material available on record, we are of the opinion that the appellant is not entitled to bail at this stage.” The judgment stated that the findings were limited to the consideration of the bail application and would not prejudice the trial.
Case Title: Mohd. Shahid Khan v. Union of India
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 7123 of 2024
Bench: Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice Anuradha Shukla
[View/Download order]
Comment / Reply From
You May Also Like
Recent Posts
Recommended Posts
Newsletter
Subscribe to our mailing list to get the new updates!