Kerala High Court: The two criminal appeals were preferred under Section 21 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (‘NIA Act’), by accused persons a against the order of the Special Court that denied their bail applications in respect of a case involving murder of a BJP activist, S.K. Sreenivasan, in furtherance of the agenda of the Popular Front of India (‘PFI’) to establish Islamic Rule in India. The Division Bench of Raja Vijayaraghavan V. and K.V. Jayakumar*, JJ., granted bail to the accused persons, observing that the trial cannot be concluded in the near future, even if the stay is vacated and other accused persons in the same case were already out on bail.
Background
The Central Government reportedly received credible intelligence suggesting that the members and office bearers of PFI and its affiliated groups in Kerala were involved in a conspiracy to incite communal violence and radicalize individuals to carry out terrorist activities. It was revealed that many of these individuals had prior associations with the banned Students Islamic Movement of India (‘SIMI’) and maintained links with global terrorist organizations such as Lashkar-e-Taiba (‘LeT’), the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (‘ISIS’)/Daesh, and Al-Qaeida.
PFI had allegedly established an organised network aimed at recruiting vulnerable Muslim youth into international terrorist organizations. They were engaged in spreading communal hatred through provocative speeches, publications, articles and social media posts, which were prejudicial to the public order and harmony. Additionally, it was alleged that PFI indulged in unlawful activities with the intent to incite disaffection against the Indian State by provoking individuals, especially innocent members of the Muslim community, to reject the governmental authority and legal institutions and thereby posing a threat to the sovereignty and integrity of India.
Consequently, the Ministry of Home Affairs directed the National Investigation Agency (‘NIA’) to take up the investigation where it was revealed that the murder of Sreenivasan was a connected offence under Section 8 of the NIA Act where the final report arrayed 44 persons as the accused and charged them for having committed offences punishable under various sections of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’), Section 3(a),(b),(d) read with Section 7 of the Religious Institutions (Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1988 (‘1988 Act’), and Sections 13, 16, 18, 18A, 18B, 20, 22C, 23, 38 & 39 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (‘UAPA’) and Section 25 (1) (a) of the Arms Act, 1959.
On 28-09-2022, the Government of India declared PFI and its affiliates as an ‘Unlawful Association’ under the UAPA. The prosecution alleged that PFI hatched a conspiracy during the past few years inside and outside Kerala, with their agenda to overthrow the democracy in India and to implement Islamic Rule in India by 2047. They also intended to eliminate those who acted against the interest of PFI and recruit enough trained cadres and stockpile arms to declare a new Constitution based on Islamic Principles. In one such specific incident in pursuance to their larger conspiracy, PFI decided to murder Sreenivasan. On 16-04-2022, 5 accused persons came on three two-wheelers, and inflicted grievous injuries on Sreenivasan and killed him by hacking his head and other parts of his body with choppers.
According to the NIA, there were two teams involved in the alleged offence i.e., the ‘Assault team’, who were the executors of the plan and the ‘Defence team’ who did not participate in the crime, but were watching the activities near the place of occurrence armed with weapons. It was alleged that the accused persons were members of the Defence team. It was further contended that there was no case made out by the State police to suggest that Sreenivasan’s murder was a terrorist act. The accused personsalso submitted that the NIA had moved an application before the Special Court seeking further investigation and there was no possibility that the trial would commence soon.
The NIA contended that the accused personscommitted the terrorist act of murder of Sreenivasan as a part of larger conspiracy to establish Islamic Rule in India as per their hidden agenda ‘India 2047’. It was submitted that the accused persons being members of the defence team had a more important role in the alleged crime as compared to the other accused who were already enlarged on bail. It was also contended that the delay in the commencement and conclusion of the trial by itself was not a ground to release the accused persons.
Analysis and Decision
The Court noted that the accused persons were accused of knowingly and intentionally becoming members of terrorist gang formed by PFI, attending the conspiracy meetings for committing the terrorist act of murdering any available Hindu leader resulting in the murder of Srinivasan on 16-04-2022. They arranged weapons for commission of terrorist act, conducted recce of the target and travelled to the crime scene to assist the assailants. They also concealed the evidence and committed acts prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony between different religious groups and disturbed the public tranquility in the State at large. Their bail applications were objected to, as the final report along with the evidence collected disclosed a prima facie case against them and therefore, there was a bar under Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA for their release on bail.
The Court relied on Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb, (2021) 3 SCC 713, where the Supreme Court had observed that “the presence of statutory restrictions like Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA per se did not oust the ability of the Constitutional Courts to grant bail on grounds of violation of Part III of the Constitution. Indeed, both the restrictions under a statute as well as the powers exercisable under constitutional jurisdiction could be well harmonised”.
The Court referred to Sk. Javed Iqbal v. State of U.P., (2024) 8 SCC 293, where the Supreme Court had emphasised that “right to life and personal liberty enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution was overarching and sacrosanct. A Constitutional Court could not be restrained from granting bail to an accused on account of restrictive statutory provisions in a penal statute if it found that the right of the accused-undertrial under Article 21 of the Constitution was infringed”.
The Court also referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra, (2024) 9 SCC 813, Rabi Prakash v. State of Odisha, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1109, and Athar Parwez v. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3762, where it was held that when a speedy trial was denied to an accused who had suffered prolonged incarceration, the rigorous restriction on the grant of bail with penal statutes would not be a bar for the Constitutional Court to grant bail.
The Court noted that they had already undergone a pre-trial detention of more than two to three years and the trial proceedings were stayed pursuant to the Supreme Court’s order dated 06-05-2024, which specifically interdicted the framing of charges, and therefore, there was no foreseeable possibility of the trial commencing or concluding in the near future. The accused persons with almost similar charges were already released on bail.
The Court relied on Shaheen Welfare Assn. v. Union of India, (1996) 2 SCC 616, wherein it was observed that “a pragmatic and constitutionally sensitive approach had to be taken where an undertrial was deprived of personal liberty for an extended period and there was no reasonable prospect of the trial concluding within a reasonable time frame”.
Consequently, the Court set aside the orders of the Special Court wherein bail was denied to the accused persons and directed that they should be released on bail on each of them executing a bond for a sum of Rs 1,00,000 with two solvent sureties each.
[Muhammed Bilal v. Union of India, 2025 SCC OnLine Ker 6239, decided on 19-08-2025]
*Judgment Authoredby: Justice K.V. Jayakumar
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Appellants: E.A. Haris, P. Vishnu, Advocates.
For the Respondents: Sasthamangalam S. Ajithkumar, Senior Panel Counsel, Sreenath Sasidharan, Advocate.
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
Buy Constitution of India HERE
