The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) has denied the bail plea of Museeruddin alias Musir alias Raju, an accused in a case involving alleged links to the Al-Qaeda module “Ansar Gazwatul Hind.” The two-judge bench comprising Justice Sangeeta Chandra and Justice Shree Prakash Singh upheld the Special Judge NIA/ATS Court’s earlier rejection of bail, citing compelling prima facie evidence under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).
Background of the Case
The case arose when the Uttar Pradesh Anti-Terrorist Squad (ATS) received intelligence about Umar Halmandi, an alleged Al-Qaeda operative based on the Pakistan-Afghanistan border. Halmandi was purportedly radicalizing and recruiting members for terrorist activities in India. The ATS identified several recruits, including the appellant, and conducted searches at his residence in Lucknow, recovering explosive materials, a pressure cooker rigged with batteries, nails, and other components allegedly meant for making improvised explosive devices (IEDs).
Legal Issues and Arguments
1. Relevance of Recovered Items: Counsel for the appellant, led by Ajmal Khan, argued that the materials found at Museeruddin’s residence, including nails and a pressure cooker, were items that could commonly be found in any household. It was also claimed that substances like “kalmi shora” (potassium nitrate) were typically used for whitewashing and had no specific connection to explosives.
2. Digital Evidence: The appellant’s legal team contended that videos and audio clips found on his mobile devices were sent by a co-accused, Minhaj Ahmad, and that there was no active involvement or intent to carry out terror activities. They cited precedents, emphasizing that bail under UAPA should not be denied solely based on the gravity of allegations without substantive evidence.
3. Rigors of UAPA Provisions: Counsel for the respondents, led by Shikha Sinha, argued that under Section 43D(5) of UAPA, bail could not be granted unless the court was satisfied that accusations were not prima facie true. The prosecution presented forensic reports confirming the presence of explosive chemicals in the recovered materials.
Court’s Decision and Observations
In its detailed judgment, the High Court underscored the settled principles of law under UAPA:
– Material Evidence: The court noted, “The materials recovered must be viewed holistically and cannot be dismissed as ordinary household items when coupled with corroborative evidence like audio clips and forensic reports.”
– Prima Facie Test: Quoting precedents like NIA vs Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali and Barkatullah vs Union of India, the court reiterated that the prima facie standard must be satisfied before granting bail.
– Role of Circumstantial Evidence: The judgment highlighted, “The totality of circumstances, including the recovery of materials and the appellant’s association with radical elements, cannot be ignored.”
Rejecting the appellant’s arguments, the court held, “When the accusation is supported by materials linking the accused to the commission of the stated offence, the provisions of UAPA necessitate a cautious approach.”
Key Highlights of the Judgment
– The court emphasized that “Bail is the rule and jail is an exception” applies even in UAPA cases, but only when statutory conditions are met.
– It acknowledged the appellant’s claim that he was merely an e-rickshaw driver but concluded that the alleged possession of explosive components and association with co-accused justified further custody.
Party Representation
– Appellant’s Counsel: Ajmal Khan, Atul Benjamin Solomon, Javed Khan, Mohammad Shoaib
– Respondent’s Counsel: Shikha Sinha, representing the National Investigation Agency (NIA), and the Government Advocate for Uttar Pradesh
Case Details
– Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 1895 of 2023
– Neutral Citation: 2024:AHC-LKO:84063-DB
