CASE TITLE:
Irfan Pasha Vs National Investigation Agency
DATE OF JUDGEMENT:
January 08, 2019
BENCH:
Justice K Somashekhar
Justice Shivashankar Amarannavar
PARTIES:
Appellants – Irfan Pasha, Mohammed Mubeeb Ulla, Mohammed Sadiq, Waseem Ahmed
Respondent – National Investigating Agency
SUBJECT
The above petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the orders passed by the city civil & sessions judge rejecting their bail application.
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS
SECTION 302 IPC
It deals with the punishment for committing murder, which extends to life imprisonment and fine too.
SECTION 3 OF ARMS ACT
It provides that no person shall possess any arms or ammunition unless it has been issued duly by license.
SECTION 27 OF ARMS ACT
It deals with the punishment for possessing or acquiring arms and ammunition without license, which shall be more than three years extending up to seven years with fine.
SECTION 15 &16 OF UNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT
These sections deal with the intent to perform a terrorist act and the punishment for the same respectively. The punishment for the same is death or life imprisonment along with fine.
SECTION 20 OF UNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT
It deals with the punishment for being a member of terrorist organisation, that extends to life imprisonment with fine.
OVERVIEW
- The appellants were arrested for the murder of an RSS worker, by which they wanted to create a terror among the other members.
- The accused herein called the appellants were in a contention that they cannot be punished or triable under the UAPA as their organisation was not banned under the Act.
- Thus, they shall be granted bail and not be prosecuted for the same under the said Act.
- The NIA contended that there is no necessity as to a person has to be a member of an organisation banned by the Act, any individual committing offences under sections 15 and 20 of the UAPA shall be prosecuted.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE APPELLANTS
- The appellants applying for bail contended that there were no material evidences against them claiming the murder of the deceased. The appellants contended that just because the presence of them would not make them to be prosecuted under UAPA.
- Thus, the application for bail made by them shall not be deemed to be made under chapter IV &VI of the UAP Act since there aren’t any reasonable grounds that prima facie state that these accused have committed offence under section 15 & 20 of UAP Act.
- The appellants further contended that the PFI was not an organisation banned by the UAP Act. They further argued that the trial court did not consider the evidences and there was no proper reasoning as to reject the bail application when there has been material on record connecting the accused to the crime.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE RESPONDENT
- The respondents contended that though there was no act of offence committed by the two accused they have been part of the crime by mere joint criminal liability wherein they were having conversation with the other accused all along before and after the crime took place.
- The respondents argued that through the seized mobiles and CDR analysis report there was a connection enabled between the accused. And also contended that call details are important evidence.
- Thus, the provisions of section 43-D of UAP Act were attracted there by not providing for the bail. The court relied upon the judgement made in National Investigation Agency vs Zahoor Ahmed Shah Watali for the same.
- The respondent further contends that there is no necessity as to an individual must be part of any organisation banned rather any individual who commits an offence under sections 15, 20 of UAP Act are prosecuted.
JUDGEMENT ANALYSIS
- The court thus held that an individual can be prosecuted for a terrorist act according to the section 15 of the Act, thus this act of murdering an RSS member the court thus observed as an act to create terror for the other members.
- The court also considering the chargesheet filed claims that there has been a prima facie act of crime by all of the accused amounting to joint criminal liability and thus they attract the provisions of section 43 D of the UAP Act wherein a bail cannot be granted.
- Thus, the court has failed to find in any reasons as to set aside the order and thus the bail application was rejected and the special court is directed to expediate the trial.
CONCLUSION
- Thus, the court held individuals be prosecuted for terrorist attack even if they are not part of any terrorist organisation. And if there are any prima facie evidences that prove the commission of offence, they shall be dealt under the UAP Act and procedure for the same shall be followed with respect to the Act.
Learn the practical aspects of CrPC HERE, CPC HERE, IPC HERE, Evidence Act HERE, Family Laws HERE, DV Act HERE
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
