Union of India represented by the Inspector of Police, National Investigation Agency, Chennai Branch Vs. Barakathullah [May 22, 2024]

15 Jun 2025 --
0 Comments

Case Background:

This case involves the Union of India, represented by the Inspector of Police of the NIA, Chennai Branch, as the appellant and Barakathullah as the respondent.

The case centers on terrorism-related offences under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA). The National Investigation Agency (NIA) had investigated Barakathullah in connection with activities suspected to threaten national security.

Barakathullah challenged the action, primarily regarding detention, investigation procedures, and bail provisions under UAPA.

Key Issues in the Case:

Applicability of UAPA:

Whether the alleged actions of Barakathullah fell under the scope of UAPA.

The NIA argued that the respondent was involved in activities supporting terrorism or unlawful associations, which attracted provisions of UAPA.

Grant of Bail under UAPA:

Section 43D(5) of UAPA makes bail more stringent than ordinary criminal cases.

Whether Barakathullah was eligible for bail, considering the seriousness of the charges.

Investigation and Procedure:

Whether the NIA had followed due process in detention, evidence collection, and filing of chargesheet.

Respondent argued procedural lapses in investigation.

Burden of Proof:

Determining who bore the burden: the NIA to prove terrorist activities, or the accused to prove innocence in bail matters under UAPA.

Arguments:

NIA / Union of India:

Alleged that Barakathullah had links with an unlawful association and was involved in activities threatening national security.

Emphasized that allowing bail could jeopardize investigation and potentially threaten public safety.

Barakathullah:

Contended that he was innocent and cooperating with investigation.

Claimed procedural lapses during arrest and detention.

Sought bail on the basis of non-involvement and health/ personal grounds.

Court’s Observations:

Strict Approach under UAPA:

The court noted that UAPA requires careful scrutiny, and bail should be granted only in exceptional circumstances.

Investigation Credibility:

The NIA had submitted detailed evidence linking the respondent to suspicious activities.

Minor procedural lapses were not sufficient to grant bail, given the seriousness of national security concerns.

Balancing Rights vs. Security:

The court emphasized the need to balance individual liberty with national security.

It applied judicial precedents stating that under UAPA, the accused must satisfy the court of innocence to get bail, unlike ordinary criminal law where the presumption of innocence favors bail.

Judgment:

Bail Denied:

The court rejected Barakathullah’s plea for bail.

Held that the NIA had presented sufficient prima facie evidence suggesting involvement in unlawful activities.

Observations:

Bail under UAPA is not a matter of right, especially when investigation indicates potential threat to public order or national security.

Courts must ensure that the liberty of the individual is protected, but security concerns prevail in cases involving terrorism or UAPA offences.