Introduction:

The Karnataka High Court, in a recent ruling, underscored the principle that individual liberty recedes when national interest, sovereignty, unity, or integrity is at stake. This observation was made by a division bench of Justice Sreenivas Harish Kumar and Justice J M Khazi while rejecting the bail application filed by Arafath Ali @ Arafath. The appellant had been charged under various sections of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for allegedly radicalizing youth and promoting the ideology of the Islamic State (ISIS). This significant ruling came in the context of a case involving the stabbing of Prem Singh in Shivamogga City in 2022, with Ali’s alleged role emerging during investigations.

Arguments from Both Sides:

Appellant’s Argument:

Arafath Ali’s defense argued that there was no direct evidence or recovery linking him to any banned organization or terrorist activities. His counsel contended that no material facts had been recovered from him during the investigation and that his involvement in any conspiracy was not explicitly proven. The defense further pointed out that even Ali’s voluntary statement had not been recorded, raising concerns about the admissibility of the statements from accomplices that the prosecution heavily relied upon. His legal team challenged the application of Section 43D(5) of the UAPA, which places significant restrictions on bail, asserting that the prosecution’s reliance on witness statements did not suffice to implicate him in radicalizing youth or engaging in anti-national activities.

Additionally, the defense argued that since Ali had been abroad during the period of the conspiracy, it was unreasonable to infer his involvement based on the mere fact that he had not been in the country at the time. The appellant’s counsel emphasized that the witness statements were unreliable and insufficient to establish his role in the alleged conspiracy, as no concrete evidence had emerged against him. In summary, Ali’s defense claimed that the case against him was largely circumstantial and that no direct evidence or membership of a banned organization had been established.

Prosecution’s Argument:

The National Investigation Agency (NIA) opposed the bail plea on multiple grounds. The prosecution’s case was built on the foundation of statements made by accomplices and witnesses, which revealed the appellant’s alleged role in promoting the ideology of ISIS. A protected witness testified that Ali, along with another individual, sought to influence and radicalize the youth in the locality to work towards establishing a caliphate in India, which aligned with the core ideology of ISIS.

The NIA further highlighted that although Ali had been abroad during a portion of the period in question, Section 1(4) of the UAPA explicitly allows for prosecution for offenses committed outside India if they pose a threat to national security. The agency stressed that Ali’s name appeared in two charge sheets filed earlier, and it was not a case where his role had been exaggerated post his return to India. The NIA also maintained that despite the absence of any physical recovery from Ali, the testimonies of witnesses were sufficient to substantiate his involvement. The agency further emphasized that his arrest and subsequent investigation had been carried out in compliance with the due process of law, and thus the bar on granting bail under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA applied in this case.

Court’s Judgement:

After thoroughly examining the records and arguments, the Karnataka High Court delivered its judgment, rejecting Arafath Ali’s appeal for bail. The bench noted that the prosecution had gathered substantial witness testimony that implicated Ali in attempts to radicalize youth by propagating the extremist ideology of ISIS. The court referred to the testimony of a protected witness, who provided a detailed account of Ali’s activities, describing his attempts to influence young people towards establishing an ISIS-inspired caliphate in India.

The court was categorical in its observation that individual liberty, as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, must give way when matters concerning national security, unity, and sovereignty are at stake. The bench clarified that while Article 21 protects an individual’s right to personal liberty, this right cannot be invoked to bypass the legal framework established for cases involving threats to national security. In this context, the court reiterated that the restrictions placed on granting bail under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA were applicable, as the allegations against Ali were serious and involved threats to the unity and integrity of the nation.

Further, the court held that the absence of a confession statement or physical recovery did not negate the strength of the prosecution’s case. The bench stated that the statements of witnesses, including the one given under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) before a magistrate, were sufficient to keep the accused in custody until the charges were either disproven or contradicted through the course of the trial. The court made it clear that it is not necessary to record a confession or recover evidence from an accused in every case. Instead, the available evidence and the seriousness of the allegations must be weighed while considering bail pleas, particularly in cases involving national security.

The court also rejected the appellant’s reliance on Article 21, emphasizing that the procedures under the UAPA, which were followed in this case, are well-established and constitutionally valid. As the investigation had adhered to the due process of law, the appellant could not seek refuge under the right to personal liberty to challenge his continued detention. The court thus concluded that the accusations against Arafath Ali remained intact and that the stringent provisions of the UAPA, particularly Section 43D(5), applied in this case. Consequently, the court upheld the decision of the special court and dismissed Ali’sappeal for bail