Supreme & Paige

Bail order of High Court must be set aside if it is found to be illegal and perverse.


The central government after receiving a credible information about cadres of Popular Front of India (PFI) instructed the NIA (National Investigation Agency) to investigate the matter. After investigation NIA filed FIR under UAPA u/s Section 120(b), 153(A), 153(AA) of IPC and Section 13,17,18,18(B), 38 and 39 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1957.

Hence, on the basis of FIR, accused filed bail application, trial court denied but High court allowed.


Observation of High Court

That there was no material to suggest the commission of any offence, which falls under Section 15 of UAPA, and that the prosecution had not produced any material about the involvement of any of the respondents-accused in any terrorist act or as a member of a terrorist gang or organization or training terrorism.


Contentions/Submissions of Appellants

So far as the merits of the Appeals are concerned, the learned advocate Mr. Rajat Nair for the appellant has vehemently submitted that the High Court had miserably failed to comprehend the correct import of Section 18 read with the definition of terrorist act contemplated under Section 15 of the UAPA for releasing the respondents on bail who have been charged with very serious offences.


Contentions/Submissions of Respondent

At the outset, the learned counsels for the respondents raising preliminary objection had submitted that the appellant having failed to mention about the SLP (Crl.) No.9384/2023 which was preferred by the appellant against the co-accused for cancellation of the bail arising out of the same FIR, the present appeal was liable to be dismissed under Order XXII, Rule 2(3) of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013.



  1. For attracting Section 18 of UAPA, the involvement of the accused in the actual commission of terrorist act as defined in Section 15 UAPA need not be shown. The High Court having miserably failed to comprehend the correct import of Section 18 read with the definition of terrorist act as contemplated in Section 15 of UAPA, in our opinion the High Court has fallen into a patent and manifest error.
  1. The Court must look at the contents of the documents and take such documents into account as it is and satisfy itself on the basis of broad probabilities regarding the involvement of the accused in the commission of the alleged offences for recording whether a prima facie case is made out against the accused.


Court should be slow in interfering with the order when the bail has been granted by the High Court, however it is equally well settled that if such order of granting bail is found to be illegal and perverse, it must be set aside.



Appeal Allowed.



Case title: Union of India rep. By the inspector of police national investigation agency chennai branch V/s  barakathullah etc.

Case no. Criminal appeal nos. 2715 – 2719 of 2024

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top