Karnataka High Court refused to grant bail to Arafath Ali, who is a suspect in an ongoing ISIS-related probe. The court supported the decision of the Special National Investigation Agency (NIA) Court, stating that national interest should take precedence over individual freedom in cases related to the nation’s unity, sovereignty, and integrity.
The decision was made by Judges Sreenivas Harish Kumar and JM Khazi, who found evidence suggesting the accused’s participation in a conspiracy against the country, leading to the rejection of bail under the UAPA.
The incident in question took place on August 15, 2022, when a young individual called Prem Singh was attacked with a knife in Shivamogga City. Throughout the investigation, officials discovered that a network was supposedly plotting to engage in terrorist actions in India. Shariq, accompanied by his partners Maaz and Yaseen, was captured. Their questioning uncovered intentions to disturb the unity and security of the nation.
As the investigation continued, connections to Arafath Ali, who was overseas at the time, were found. After being detained in September 2023, Ali was accused by the NIA of violating multiple sections of the UAPA, IPC, and Explosive Substances Act. Advocate S.Balakrishnan, representing Arafath Ali, disputed the denial of bail by arguing that Ali was not mentioned in the first charge sheet and was arrested long after with insufficient evidence linking him to the case. It was also contended that Ali was not implicated in the conspiracy based on the lack of recovery or confessional statements linking him to the crime, and simply being associated with the other accused individuals did not prove his involvement.
However, Special Public Prosecutor C Sachin from the NIA contended that the proof unequivocally showed Ali’s participation via communication logs and monetary exchanges linking him to the other suspects. Furthermore, testimony from confidential sources described Ali’s involvement in radicalizing youth and advocating for the creation of a caliphate in India. The prosecution argued that, considering the seriousness of the allegations under UAPA, the refusal of bail was warranted because of the grave nature of the charges.
The court emphasized the importance of balancing individual freedom under Article 21 of the Constitution with the national interest, stating that Article 21 is specifically related to the liberty of each person. The meaning of Article 21 is that an individual’s freedom cannot be restricted without following the proper legal procedures. Its significance has been broadened, undoubtedly holding a higher level of holiness. However, individual liberty takes a back seat whenever national interest is at stake or when there is a threat to the nation’s unity, sovereignty, and integrity. National interest should take precedence over individual or personal interests. The nation in which a person is born is not inferior to the individual. If a person is arrested without proper legal proceedings, they can claim their right to freedom under Article 21. If appropriate legal procedures are followed in a criminal case, bail decisions must be based on bail laws, not on Article 21.
The court also analyzed the testimonies of confidential witnesses, with one important witness accusing the defendant of actively influencing young people in the community to endorse the formation of an Islamic Caliphate in India, in line with ISIS beliefs. Additional witnesses supported this claim, providing further evidence of the defendant’s participation in terrorist plots, efforts to recruit others, and questionable financial transactions associated with the larger terrorist group. The court noted that the witnesses’ statements “paint a clear picture of how the appellant was involved in different ways.”
The court dismissed the appellant’s counsel’s argument, which centered on the accused not confessing or incriminating material not being found. It was believed that implicating an accused does not always require obtaining a confession statement. There is no requirement for recovery from an accused under section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. These are not essential requirements.
According to the Supreme Court’s decision in the Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali case, the main focus when granting bail under the UAPA should be on determining if the allegations are “prima facie true,” rather than conducting a thorough examination of the evidence needed for a complete trial. The court stated that currently, the evidence provided by the prosecution is enough to prove the defendant’s participation unless proven otherwise by additional evidence. In the end, the court determined that the decision to deny bail to the accused by the NIA Special Court was correct, leading to the dismissal of the appeal due to lack of merit.