1. SUMMARY OF THE JUDGEMENT
Criminal appeal no 3173 of 2024
Judgment Date 13 August 2024
Supreme Court of India (Bench Abhay S. Oka and Augustine George Mashoh, JJ) Acts and sections involved – IPC SECTION 121, 121a, 122.
Unlawful Activities prevention Act 1967- SECTION- 13, 18, 18A, 20.
BACKGROUND OF THE CASE
The appellant, Jalaluddin Khan, was implicated in a case involving serious allegations under both the IPC and UAPA. He was accused of renting out a property that was allegedly used by members of the Popular Front of India (PFI) for unlawful activities. Despite the gravity of the charges, including the potential involvement in a conspiracy to commit terrorist acts, The Supreme Court found that the material on record did not prima facie support the accusations against him, warranting his release on bail.
Investigation and Chargesheet
A Chargesheet was filed on 7 January 2023 against the appellant, Mr. Jalaluddin Khan among others, alleging involvement in offences under the IPC (Sections 121, 121A, 122) and the UAPA (Sections 13, 18, 18A, 20).
These sections relate to waging war against the State, conspiracy, and promotion of unlawful activities.
Application for Bail
The appellant applied for bail before the Special Court designated under UAPA, but it was rejected.
Subsequently, he filed a bail application in the Patna High Court, which was also rejected (while bail was granted to a co-accused).
Appeal to Supreme Court
The appellant filed Criminal Appeal No. 3173 of 2024 in the Supreme Court challenging the High Court’s refusal to grant bail.
◻ Facts as Recorded by the Court
The central factual backdrop of the case was as follows:
- Jalaluddin Khan was shown as Accused No. 2 in the chargesheet.
- It was alleged that his wife owned a property known as Ahmad
The appellant allegedly facilitated letting out the first floor of this building on rent to another accused (Accused No. 1 – Athar Parwez).
The prosecution claimed that the first-floor premises were used for activities of an organization called the Popular Front of India (PFI) — alleged to be involved in unlawful activities.
The core allegation was that this property was used to further unlawful activities in contravention of UAPA and that the appellant had aided in providing the premises for these alleged activities.
. The accused were arrested in a serious offence under a special statute.
. He remaning in judicial custody for a considerable period.
. Bail was opposed on the ground of gravity of offence.
OBSERVATION OF THE COURT
1. Test under Section 43-D(5) UAPA not satisfied
The Supreme Court observed that while considering bail under UAPA, the court is required to examine whether there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against the accused is prima facie true.
In the present case, such prima facie satisfaction could not be recorded against the appellant.
Mere allegations are not sufficient; material must show direct involvement
2. No direct role or overt act attributed to the appellant.
The Court noted that no specific overt act was attributed to Jalaluddin Khan. The only allegation against him was that:
The property belonged to his wife, and
A portion of the property was allegedly rented to another accused.
The Court categorically held that ownership of property or renting it out, by itself, does not establish involvement in unlawful activities.
There was no material to show that the appellant knew or participated in any unlawful activity.
3. Association is not the same as participation
The Court observed that mere association or proximity with a person or organisation cannot automatically attract UAPA offences.
There must be clear and cogent material showing:
Intent,
-Knowledge, and
-Active participation
The prosecution failed to show any conscious role played by the appellant.
4. Lower courts relied on general allegations, not individual role
The Supreme Court found that the Special Court and the High Court:
Focused on the alleged activities of the organisation, rather than Examining the specific role of the appellant individually.
This approach was held to be legally unsustainable.
Bail cannot be denied by painting all accused with the same brush.
5. PFI not a terrorist organisation under UAPA Schedule
The Court made an important observation that:
Popular Front of India (PFI) is not included as a “terrorist organisation” in the First Schedule of the UAPA.
Therefore, mere linkage with PFI cannot automatically attract stringent provisions meant for terrorist Organisations.
This diluted the prosecution’s case at the stage of bail.
6. Prolonged incarceration without strong material is impermissible
The Court noted that the appellant had already undergone substantial custody, and Continued detention without strong prima facie evidence would violate personal liberty under Article 21.
Pre-trial punishment is not permissible.
7. Reaffirmation of “Bail is the Rule, Jail is the Exception” The Supreme Court reiterated that:
Even in cases under special statutes like UAPA,
Personal liberty cannot be sacrificed unless statutory conditions are strictly met.
Since the prosecution failed to cross the threshold of prima facie truth, denial of bail was unjustified.
. Personal liberty under Article 21 is of paramount importance.
. Bail cannot be denied mechanically only because the offence is serious.
. In absence of concrete material showing fight risk, tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses, continued incarceration is unjustified.
2. MANISH SHISHODIA VS DIRECTORATE OF ENFORECEMENT SUPREME COURT OF INDIA 2024
Case citation – 2024 INSC 595
Date of Judgement- August 9, 2024 Court-supreme court of India
Bench- Justice B.R Gavai and Justice K.V Viswanathan
Key legal precedent- Reaffirmed that “bail is the rule and jail is an exception’’, Nothing that prolonged detention cannot be used as punishment.
FACTS OF THE CASE
Arrest and Allegations:
Manish Sisodia was arrested by the CBI on February 26, 2023, and later by the ED on March 9, 2023, following allegations of altering the excise policy to favor private liquor vendors in exchange for bribes (kickbacks).
Procedural Delay:
Despite earlier Supreme Court directives in October 2023 for a fast trial, the prosecution failed to begin the trial, with roughly 493 witnesses and over 69,000 pages of documents involved in both cases.
Previous Rejections:
The Delhi High Court and trial courts rejected multiple bail applications, citing the severity of the offense and the high burden of proof under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
- The accused faced serious
- He had remained in custody for a long
- Evidence was primarily documentary and already
OBSERVATION OF THE COURT
Right to Speedy Trial:
The Supreme Court noted that the trial had not even commenced, making it unlikely to conclude soon. “When the trial is not likely to proceed in a foreseeable future,” the Supreme Court stated that “we cannot keep a person in jail for an indefinite period”
Scathing Criticism of Lower Courts:
The Court observed that the High Court and trial courts acted as a “travesty of justice” by not properly applying the principle that bail is the rule, forcing the Supreme Court to intervene to protect personal liberty.
Violation of Liberty:
The Court stressed that the right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right, and keeping an accused in custody for 17 months without trial, especially when the prosecution’s earlier assurance of a swift trial was not met, is unjustifiable.
Conditions of Bail:
While granting bail, the Court ordered Sisodia to surrender his passport, report to the police station weekly, and not influence witnesses or tamper with evidence.
Bail is the rule and jail is an exception Continued incarceration cannot be justified when investigation is complete and there is no likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice.
. Once investigation is substantially complete, custody loses its relevance.
. Detention pending trial should not become punitive.
3. ABHISHEK VS STATE OF KERALA KERALA HIGH COURT 2025
CASE FACTS
- Accused / Petitioner:
Abhishek, aged 18 years, son of Haridas, resident of Thrissur District, Kerala.
- Registered FIR:
Crime No. 1565 of 2024, Kalady Police Station, Ernakulam District, Kerala.
- Charges:
Offences under Sections 61(2), 118(1), 126(2), 309(6), 311, 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).
- Alleged Incident:
On 27 December 2024 at about 5.15 p.m., the complainant (cashier of VKD vegetable store) was coming with ₹32 lakh collection.
The group of accused allegedly blocked the informant, caused his bike to fall, stabbed him in the abdomen with intent to kill, and robbed the money.
- Role of the Petitioner (Abhishek):
Petitioner was listed as the 8th accused.
The prosecution alleged that he procured a motorbike for use in the robbery and handed it to another accused (A2).
It was also alleged that he harboured A2 and took a video of the robbed money which was shared with other accused.
- Custody:
Abhishek was in custody from 13 January 2025 onwards at the time of bail hearing.
Arguments Before the High Court
◻ For the Petitioner
No participation in the actual violent incident; he did not stab or physically assault the victim.
No criminal antecedents.
Ready to abide by any conditions imposed if bail is granted.
◻ For the State
The petitioner aided and abetted the robbery and was part of the common intention of the group.
OBSERVATION OF THE COURT
- Grave Nature of allegation
The court acknowledged that robbery with attempt to murder and theft of ₹32 lakh was a serious crime.
However, seriousness alone cannot justify indefinite detention without case-specific considerations.
- Role of Abhishek was relatively lesser
The court observed that Abhishek’s alleged role was peripheral — procuring a motorbike and providing accommodation to a co-accused, not direct participation in physical violence.
He was not alleged to have stabbed or physically attacked the victim himself.
- No criminal antecedents
The petitioner had no previous record of involvement in crime. This weighed in Favour of bail being appropriate.
- Custodial period considered
The court noted that the petitioner had been in custody since mid-January 2025, thus undergoing significant pre-trial detention.
Prolonged detention must be balanced with right to fair trial and liberty.
- Principle: Bail is the Rule, Jail an Exception
The court emphasized the well-settled principle that “bail is the rule and jail is the exception”.
It referred to Supreme Court decisions (e.g., P Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement and Jalaluddin Khan v. Union of India) reaffirming this core principle.
- Court’s Order (Bail Grant & Conditions)
The High Court allowed the bail application and directed:
- Release on Bail
Petitioner to be released on bail upon executing a bond of ₹50,000 with two solvent sureties of similar amount to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional court.