Introduction:
The Allahabad High Court in the matter of Mohd. Kamil @ Kamil v. State of U.P. Thru. ATS, Lucknow granted bail to an alleged operative of AQIS (Al-Qaeda in the Indian Subcontinent) and JMB (Jamaat-ul-Mujahideen Bangladesh), a month after the Supreme Court requested the High Court to decide the matter within three months. The accused had been denied bail by the Special NIA Court, which prompted him to file an appeal. He contended that the allegations against him were similar to those faced by 11 co-accused operatives, who were granted bail by the Allahabad High Court last year. The bench comprising Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Justice Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary considered the principles of parity, the pendency of investigation, and procedural irregularities in granting relief. The accused, Mohd. Kamil, was alleged to have aided in the preparation of sleeper modules for terrorist organizations, recruited individuals, and propagated anti-national ideologies in Uttar Pradesh with intent to threaten national unity, sovereignty, and integrity. The Court, while acknowledging the seriousness of the offences, held that parity with other co-accused, procedural fairness, and statutory considerations under Section 167(2) of the CrPC warranted bail.
Arguments by the Petitioner:
Advocate Muzahid Ahmad along with Advocate Furkan Pathan, representing Mohd. Kamil, argued that the appellant was being treated differently from his co-accused despite facing identical allegations and charges. They highlighted that last year, six criminal appeals of nine co-accused persons had been allowed by the Allahabad High Court. In those cases, the Court had granted default bail under Section 167(2) of the CrPC, holding that the Special NIA Court’s orders extending the time for investigation were illegal since they were passed in the absence of the accused. The counsel submitted that the appellant was in no different position and was entitled to the same relief under the principle of parity, which is well-established in Indian jurisprudence.
The petitioner contended that the appellant’s involvement, though alleged, had not been proven and was comparable to the role of his co-accused who were already enlarged on bail. They stressed that he was being detained for an extended period pending investigation, which, in light of the Supreme Court’s direction for expeditious disposal, warranted judicial intervention to prevent undue hardship. It was argued that prolonged detention without trial violates fundamental rights, especially when the accused is cooperative, has a permanent residence, and is not likely to abscond. The counsel relied on several precedents asserting that procedural irregularities, coupled with parity considerations, constitute strong grounds for bail in cases of this nature.
The petitioner emphasized that the accusations were largely based on procedural or investigative assumptions and not on conclusive evidence directly linking the appellant to terrorist activities. The counsel pointed out that equitable principles demand that no accused should be discriminated against in comparison to co-accused, and parity of treatment in judicial decisions is a cornerstone of fairness in criminal jurisprudence.
Arguments by the State:
Additional Government Advocate SN Tilhari, appearing for the State, opposed the bail plea, arguing that the alleged offences were of a grave and sensitive nature involving national security. The State contended that the accused had been implicated under Sections 121-A and 123 of the Indian Penal Code, as well as Sections 13, 18, 18-B, 20, and 38 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, which pertain to terrorist conspiracy, recruiting for terrorist activities, and propagating anti-national ideologies. The prosecution stressed that the activities of the appellant, if proven, had the potential to destabilize law and order, threaten national integrity, and endanger public safety.
The State submitted that allowing bail to the appellant could hinder the investigation or affect witness testimony, given the sensitive nature of counter-terrorism investigations. The prosecution argued that while other co-accused had been granted bail, each case must be considered on its individual merits, especially where the involvement of the accused may differ in degree, and caution must be exercised when national security is implicated.
Despite these contentions, the State could not dispute the fact that the appellant’s co-accused had been granted bail in similar circumstances, nor did it demonstrate that the appellant posed a risk of absconding or tampering with evidence. The prosecution’s arguments were therefore limited to emphasizing the seriousness of the offence rather than providing concrete reasons for continued detention beyond procedural parity.
Court’s Judgment:
The Division Bench, after considering submissions from both sides, emphasized the importance of parity in judicial relief. Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Justice Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary observed that the appellant had been arrested under charges similar to those faced by co-accused who had already been granted bail. The Court highlighted that Section 167(2) of the CrPC and established jurisprudence mandate that undue pre-trial detention must be avoided, particularly when procedural irregularities in investigation or court proceedings have resulted in delayed custody.
The Bench held that while the allegations against the appellant were serious, the principle of parity required that he be treated similarly to other accused in the same case. The Court noted that the Special NIA Court’s refusal to grant bail in this instance lacked a substantive basis differing from the circumstances of the co-accused. It was further observed that there was no evidence to suggest that the appellant would evade the law or interfere with the investigation if released on bail.
Considering the above, the Court set aside the impugned order of the Special NIA Court and granted bail to the appellant, Mohd. Kamil, on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- with reliable sureties, subject to compliance with all conditions as required by the trial court. The High Court clarified that the grant of bail did not amount to an opinion on the merits of the case or the veracity of the charges, but was solely a matter of parity and procedural fairness.
The judgment reaffirms that bail jurisprudence in cases involving serious allegations, including terrorism, must balance the gravity of offences with procedural safeguards, equity among co-accused, and the constitutional protection of personal liberty. The Court underscored that justice demands uniformity in treatment and that parity cannot be overlooked in judicial decision-making. The decision demonstrates the judiciary’s careful approach to upholding the rule of law while ensuring that pre-trial detention is not arbitrarily prolonged.