Case Citation
Court Name: Supreme Court of India
Case Title: Athar Parwez v. Union of India
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 5387 of 2024 [Arising out of SLP (Crl) No. 9209 of 2024]
Date of Judgment: December 17, 2024
Judge(s): Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih
Facts
The appellant, Athar Parwez, sought bail after the High Court of Patna dismissed his bail plea. He was arrested on July 12, 2022, in connection with FIR No. 827 of 2022 under IPC Sections 120, 120B, 121, 121A, 153A, 153B, and 34, as well as under provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), 1967. The appellant was accused of being an active member of the Popular Front of India (PFI) and conspiring to disturb the peace during the Prime Minister’s proposed visit to Patna. A raid was conducted on July 11, 2022, at a premises rented by the appellant, where allegedly incriminating materials, including a document titled “India 2047 Towards Rule of Islam in India”, were seized.
The National Investigation Agency (NIA) took over the case and filed a chargesheet under IPC Sections 121, 121A, 122, 153A, 153B, and various provisions of UAPA. The chargesheet alleged that the appellant participated in PFI meetings and protests promoting anti-national activities.
Contentions of the appellant
The appellant contended that the seizure of the incriminating documents was dubious, as the alleged materials were recovered from the second floor of Ahmad Palace, which was not rented by him. The rented premises were limited to the first floor, as per the rent deed. He argued that the document seized did not incite violence or terrorist activities but merely contained ideological discussions. The appellant further claimed that PFI was not a banned organization at the time of the alleged offenses. Additionally, he highlighted that he had been in custody for over two years without charges being framed and pointed out the slow pace of the trial with 354 witnesses and 40 accused. The appellant’s counsel relied on the fact that a co-accused with similar allegations had already been granted bail.
Contentions of the respondent
The respondent, represented by the Additional Solicitor General, argued that the appellant was an active member of the PFI, an organization accused of promoting disharmony and violence. The respondent claimed that meetings organized by the appellant were aimed at creating internal disturbances and attacking individuals who made derogatory remarks about Islam and Prophet Mohammad. The NIA presented electronic evidence, CCTV footage, and statements from protected witnesses indicating the appellant’s involvement in PFI’s unlawful activities, including fundraising, recruitment, and organizing meetings to propagate the “India 2047” agenda. The respondent opposed bail on the grounds of national security and the seriousness of the allegations.
Issues on this judgment
- Whether the allegations against the appellant, as per the chargesheet, are sufficient to deny bail under Section 43-D(5) of UAPA, 1967.
- Whether the prolonged incarceration of the appellant without framing of charges violates Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
- Whether the materials and evidence presented prima facie establish the appellant’s involvement in terrorist activities under UAPA.
Observations/findings by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court observed that while the allegations were serious, the evidence against the appellant did not prima facie substantiate the charges under UAPA. The Court noted discrepancies in the prosecution’s claims, especially regarding the recovery of the incriminating document, which was seized from a floor not rented by the appellant. Statements from protected witnesses were also found insufficient to directly implicate the appellant. The Court emphasized that mere participation in protests and meetings does not constitute an offense under UAPA, particularly when PFI was not a banned organization at the time.
The Court also addressed the appellant’s prolonged incarceration of over two years without charges being framed, highlighting that such delays violate the fundamental right to a speedy trial guaranteed under Article 21. The Court cited precedents where bail was granted in cases of long incarceration when trials were unlikely to conclude soon.
Principle laid down
The principle laid down in this case reaffirms that under UAPA, bail can be granted if the Court finds that the accusations are not prima facie true. Additionally, the Court held that the constitutional right to a speedy trial takes precedence over stringent statutory provisions when an accused has faced prolonged incarceration without trial progress. Mere participation in protests or ideological meetings, without overt acts of violence, cannot attract stringent provisions of UAPA.
Final order
The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the High Court and directed that the appellant be released on bail on appropriate conditions to be determined by the Special Court. The appellant is to be produced before the Special Court within seven days for formalizing the bail terms. The Court clarified that its observations were tentative and limited to the bail proceedings and would not influence the trial or the case of co-accused persons.
Importance of this judgment to society
This judgment is a landmark in protecting individual liberty against arbitrary incarceration under stringent laws like UAPA. It emphasizes that allegations of serious offenses must be backed by credible evidence, and prolonged custody without trial cannot be justified. By upholding the constitutional right to a speedy trial under Article 21, the Supreme Court underscores the importance of balancing national security concerns with fundamental rights. This decision sets a precedent for ensuring fairness and judicial scrutiny in cases involving anti-terror laws, preventing misuse and safeguarding civil liberties in a democratic society.
