Orissa High Court: In a bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’) seeking release in connection with a case pending before the Sessions Judge, Cuttack, wherein the offences alleged are punishable under Sections 16, 17, 18, 18(B), 20, 21, 28, 40 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (‘UAPA’) read with Section 124(A) of the Penal Code, (‘IPC’), a Single Judge Bench of G. Satapathy, J., held that prolonged detention in custody could not entitle the petitioner to bail in view of the serious allegations of indulging in unlawful activities and propagating anti-national ideology.
Thus, the Court held that the petitioner did not satisfy the conditions of Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA and did not consider it proper to grant bail, especially when the petitioner was already convicted in another case and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years.
Background:
The criminal case against the petitioner arose out of an FIR lodged by the IIC, Jagatpur Police Station. On receipt of credible information about the petitioner propagating an anti-national campaign by influencing the local people, the IIC conducted an enquiry and ascertained that the petitioner and his associates had been running Madrasas in village Bilteruan and other places for three to four years. They were teaching around 80 students from Jharkhand and other States, but the petitioner was mainly propagating anti-national ideology in the minds of innocent students with a view to engage them in anti-national activities.
The informant further confidentially learned that the petitioner was in the process of recruiting youths from this Madrasa for terrorist organisations like Al-Qaeda in the Indian Subcontinent and Indian Muzahiddin. It was also revealed that some youths had already been recruited by him for the terrorist organisation to organize Jihad, and that he was receiving money from foreign sources in the form of donations in the name of the Madrasa.
The petitioner was apprehended on 15-12-2015 at night in connection with offences punishable under Sections 18, 18(B), and 20 of the UAPA Act. After registration of the case, the petitioner was remanded in the present case, which resulted in the trial. Being unsuccessful before the Trial Court in his attempt to secure release on bail, the petitioner again approached this Court through the present bail application.
Analysis and decision:
The Court emphasised that the only ground on which bail was sought by the petitioner was his long detention in custody, but the allegation against the petitioner was not only serious, but also grave. The Court noted that although 38 witnesses had already been examined, the trial was yet to be concluded. The Court further observed that the petitioner was convicted by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Patiala House Court, New Delhi, vide judgment dated 10-02-2023, and sentenced on 14-02-2023 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and five months.
The Court highlighted that in view of the matter, and taking into account the allegations vis-à-vis the nature and gravity of the offences, together with the evidence of witnesses so far examined, the petitioner did not satisfy the conditions of Section 43-D(5) of UAPA. The Court observed that since there were allegations against the petitioner regarding his links with Al-Qaeda and the acts alleged against him having ramifications over national security and the safety of local people at large, it did not consider it proper to grant bail, especially when the petitioner was already convicted in another case.
Accordingly, the bail application was rejected, with a direction to the Trial Court to expedite the trial and dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible.
[Md. Abdur Raheman v. State of Orissa, 2025 SCC OnLine Ori 4047, decided on 11-11-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: S.R. Mulia, Advocate
For the Respondent: A. Pradhan, Addl. PP
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
