Isabella Mariam

The Patna High Court Division Bench of Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Justice Sourendra Pandey held that matters involving potential threats to national security and public safety stand on a different footing from ordinary criminal cases, and that incarceration of about two and a half years alone cannot justify bail in such prosecutions. The Court dismissed the bail appeal of an accused alleged to have participated in activities linked to a broader plan to create disturbance during the proposed visit of the Prime Minister to Patna, noting materials suggesting association with proscribed organisations, support to convicted offenders, and involvement in efforts to advance extremist objectives. The Bench concluded that the accusations appeared prima facie true and directed that the trial be concluded expeditiously.

The matter arises from an appeal challenging an order passed by the Special Judge, NIA, Patna, in a case registered following information received on 11 July 2022 by a police inspector that certain individuals were allegedly planning an incident during the proposed visit of the Prime Minister to Patna. Acting on this information, police conducted verification at a building known as Ahmed Palace, where meetings were reportedly taking place. During the search, officers recovered documents titled India 2047 Towards Rule of Islamic India, pamphlets and flags associated with the Popular Front of India, and materials indicating training activities. Further searches at the residence of one of the alleged participants produced additional documents, including ideological literature, correspondence, and records suggesting links to persons involved in previous terror-related cases.

Also Read: Provident Fund Dues Supersede Secured Creditor’s Claims Under SARFAESI Act: Supreme Court

The National Investigation Agency subsequently took over the investigation, carrying out searches at multiple locations, including the appellant’s residence. According to the agency, the seized materials showed the appellant’s association with members of proscribed organisations, involvement in forming a group aligned with the agenda of the Popular Front of India, and alleged financial assistance to convicted individuals in terror cases. Several documents, diaries, letters, and electronic money order receipts were relied upon to assert that funds were sent to imprisoned individuals. The prosecution invoked provisions of the Indian Penal Code relating to conspiracy and waging war, along with sections of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act concerning support for and involvement with unlawful and terrorist organisations.

The Court stated that the NIA “has placed on record overwhelming materials collected from the premises of the appellant” and that the appellant “was a member of a proscribed terrorist organization, namely SIMI and after the said organization was banned, he formed an organization of ‘Wahadat-e-Islami Hind’.” The Court observed that he “was instrumental in preparing a secret group of ex-SIMI members to work for the agenda of Popular Front of India and its prime agenda was to establish Islamic rule in India as envisioned in the PFIs ‘India 2047 document’.”

The Court took note of the records showing that the appellant “was providing financial assistance to the members of the terrorist organization and the convicted terrorists.” The Bench referred to materials indicating that the appellant “was in association with inmates of Aurangabad Arms Haul case, Indian Mujahiddinn case, 7/11 train bomb blast case, Gateway of India bomb blast case, Daesh case, Nanded Arms Haul case and Mumbai 26/11 attack case, etc.” It further recorded that documents seized from the premises contained details of “criminals lodged in various jails including Safdar Hussain Nagori, a convicted SIMI member and his associates lodged in Bhopal Central Jail, Ghulam Sarwar, ex-SIMI head of Bihar State and Mohammad Sahenshah, both arrested in Gaya blast case.”

On the plea of parity, the Court recorded that “by no stretch of imagination the case of this appellant may be placed on identical footing with that of those appellants who have been granted bail by this Court.” The Bench noted that the distinctions were “well drawn” by the prosecution and that the cases of the co-accused who had been granted bail did not involve materials comparable to those found from the appellant’s premises.

The Court stated that Section 43D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act prohibits release on bail when the accusations appear prima facie true, and recorded that “this Court cannot come to a conclusion even prima facie that there is no reasonable ground for believing that the accusations against the appellant… are not prima facie true.” Addressing the appellant’s prolonged custody, the Court stated that “mere period of incarceration of two and half years, at this stage, cannot be a good ground to grant bail to the appellant.”

Also Read: Unauthorized Detention Violates Article 21; Patna High Court Orders ₹2 Lakh Compensation For Six-Day Illegal Custody And Directs IG Prisons To Issue Statewide Guidelines

The Court directed: “In result, this appeal would fail. It is dismissed accordingly. All endeavours be made by the learned trial court to conclude the trial as early as possible, preferably within a period of one year. It is expected that the NIA must be vigilant and take appropriate steps to produce the witnesses on the date fixed by the learned Special Judge, NIA Court, Patna.”

Advocates Representing The Parties

For the Appellant: Mr. Mujahid Ahmad, Advocate; Mr. Shams Akhtar, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Dr. K.N. Singh (A.S.G.); Mr. Arvind Kumar, Spl. PP; Mr. Aayushman, AC to ASG; Mr. Paritosh Parimal, Advocate

Case Title: Anwar Rashid vs The Union Bank of India through National Investigation Agency Bihar
Case Number: Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 310 of 2025
Bench: Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Justice Sourendra Pandey