Accused in an ISIS-related UAPA case sought interim medical bail after his regular bail was rejected, citing serious heart ailment. Court obtained fresh Medical Board reports showing stable condition and adequate prison treatment, distinguished precedents on grave medical grounds, and dismissed the appeal.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NC: 2024:KHC:50880-DB CRL.A No.1812/2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024 PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1812/2024 (21(NIA))
BETWEEN:
M SADIQ BASHA S/O T A MASTHAN AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT NO.40, 2ND MAIN ROAD SONNAHALLI VIVEK NAGAR BANGALORE – 560047 …APPELLANT
(BY SRI.MOHAMMED TAHIR, ADVOCATE) AND:
Digitally signed by K S RENUKAMBA Location: High Court of Karnataka
NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS REP. BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR OFFICE AT HIGH COURT COMPLEX OPP. TO VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE - 560 001 …RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. PRASANNA KUMAR P, SPL.PP)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 21(4) OF THE NIA ACT, 2008 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 19.09.2024 PASSED BY THE XLIX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, (SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF NIA CASES), (CCH-50), BENGALURU IN SPL.C.NO.320/2020 AT ANNEXURE-A AND CONSEQUENTLY APPRECIATE INTERIM MEDICAL BAIL APPLICATION FILED BY THE APPELLANT AT ANNEXURE-E AND ETC.
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 25.11.2024, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, K.S.MUDAGAL. J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
NC: 2024:KHC:50880-DB CRL.A No.1812/2024
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL AND HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL)
Challenging dismissal of his application for bail, accused
No.21 in Spl.C.No.320/2020 on the file of XLIX Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, (Special Court for Trial of NIA Cases), (CCH-50), Bengaluru (for short ‘Trial Court’) has preferred the above appeal under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (for short ‘NIA Act’).
(i) Inspired by the ideologies of ISIS organization, they conspired to establish Dar al Islam to make India an Islamic country breaking integrity and sovereignty of India. Accused
No.1 motivated the other accused. In execution of such conspiracy accused No.1 who is a staunch follower of Ahle Hadees Sect, in December 2015 established Al-Hind Research Foundation cum Library at Lakkasandra, Bengaluru in the pretext of charitable works. The said trust has not been registered so far. Initially most of the members of Al Hind Group were close relatives of accused No.1/Mehboob Pasha. Accused No.12 had contact with unknown ISIS handler by name Bhai/accused No.23. Through dark web and social groups they planned terrorist activities. Accused Nos.2 and 20 of their group were involved in several cases relating to terrorism, murder etc and were facing criminal cases in Tamil Nadu. After his release on bail in that case accused No.2 directly involved in the activities of Al-Hind group. The accused conducted several meetings at Bengaluru, Kolar and Mysore in Karnataka and several places in Tamil Nadu with Al-Hind group members at Al-Hind office as well as in the houses of accused persons. In such meetings accused No.2 started to radicalize Alhind group members for committing Jihadi activities. They used to recruit service teams based on the physical fitness of the members of their group. They made strategies. Al-hind group members used to raise funds by way of donations etc for
purchasing weapons, explosives, training materials, jungle camp materials and vehicles for Jihadi activities. They used to search secret places and conduct jungle training camps in such places. They used to procure fire crackers and sparklers to extract explosive content from them for making powerful improvised explosive devices (IED). In furtherance of such activities accused Nos.2 and 22 and some of the members of the said group procured arms and ammunitions from Mumbai.
(ii) During the course of investigation it was revealed that accused No.15 collected four pistols and 100 rounds of ammunitions from Mumbai and he delivered the same to accused No.1 in Bengaluru. Accused No.1 in turn distributed those pistols, live rounds to accused Nos.4, 7, 8 and 9 for committing the terrorist attacks. During the investigation such arms and ammunitions were recovered from the accused. With the help of those arms and ammunitions the accused planned to commit violent attacks on Government officials, Hindu Religious and Political leaders all over India for spreading ideologies of ISIS etc. In execution of their conspiracy, when their vehicle was intercepted at Kaliyikavillai Market Road, Police check post, accused Nos.4 and 7 shot dead Police
NC: 2024:KHC:50880-DB CRL.A No.1812/2024
inspector by name Wilson. Accused Nos.2, 3 and 5 were intercepted when they were about to carry out their terrorist attack in Delhi and to evade apprehension, they indiscriminately fired at the police Personnel.
NC: 2024:KHC:50880-DB CRL.A No.1812/2024
Apart from merits of charge sheet, in the said bail application
he urged his medical condition as one of the grounds for bail and contended that treatment provided in the prison is not sufficient. Trial Court by the order dated 18.07.2024 rejected the said application. Para 48 of the said order indicates that the Trial Court secured the medical reports of the appellant and accused No.15 a co-applicant and found that they were being provided needed medical treatment. The order further indicates that the prosecution contended that appellant can be treated in specialized Government Hospitals like Victoria and Bowring Hospital. Trial Court considering the material on record and submissions rejected the bail application holding that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the appellant has committed the offence punishable under the provisions of the UAP Act, therefore Section 43D(5) of UAP Act bars granting bail to him. Trial Court further held that it will issue necessary directions to the prison authorities to provide treatment to appellant in a specialized hospital if the situation demands and the family members will be allowed to take care of the appellant if he is admitted into the hospital for treatment.
one month, the appellant filed another application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking interim bail for a period of three months on the same medical grounds. The said application was opposed by the prosecution. Trial Court on hearing the parties by the impugned order again rejected the said application on the ground that it called for the medical reports, as per the medical reports, the condition of the appellant is stable and he is being given required treatment through the best hospitals.
1 Bail Appln.1762/2022 (DD 29.05.2023)
NC: 2024:KHC:50880-DB CRL.A No.1812/2024
ii) Ziya Ur Rehman vs. National Investigation Agency2 iii) Ateeq Ahmed vs. National Investigation Agency3
Prosecutor submits that as per the medical records, the condition of the appellant is stable and he is being provided with all the required medicines. He submits that when the bail application on the same ground was rejected, to overreach that order an application by way of interim bail application is filed which is impermissible. He submits that the judgments cited by the appellant are not applicable and the appeal be dismissed.
Analysis
2 Crl.A.No.6/2024 (DD 31.01.2024)
3 Crl.A.No.793/2024 (18.06.2024)
NC: 2024:KHC:50880-DB CRL.A No.1812/2024
were working in aid of ISIS a proscribed terrorist organization.
The specific allegations against the appellant is that he was part of strategy of radicalization of Al-Hind group members, he arranged conspiracy meetings, participated in Armed training and committed the offences which are punishable under Section 120B IPC and Sections 18, 20, and 39 of UAP Act. On 18.07.2024 his bail application before the Trial Court was rejected on merits as well as on medical grounds. On 20.08.2024 he filed interim bail application again urging the same medical grounds which came to be rejected by the impugned order.
NC: 2024:KHC:50880-DB CRL.A No.1812/2024
submitted by the said Board to the Medical Officer of the Central Prison. Along with the medical investigating records, the Medical Officer of Central Prison has submitted the report to the Superintendent of Central Prison, Bengaluru. In turn Superintendent of Prison has submitted the same to this Court with his letter dated 20.11.2024.
“Sadiq Basha (appellant) has been diagnosed as a case of Diabetes mellitus with dilated Cardiomyopathy. He claims to have not received medications since one week and he is suffering from breathlessness, NYHA III. He is otherwise comfortable at rest. He was evaluated clinically and underwent relevant investigations viz., ECG, Echo, Chest X ray and blood tests. He is advised to take prescribed medications strictly and regularly . He is also advised to control diabetes and advised to report to casualty in case of severe breathlessness, chest pain, palpitation and loss consciousness.”
(Emphasis supplied)
NC: 2024:KHC:50880-DB CRL.A No.1812/2024
Officer of the Central Prison, Bengaluru dated 20.11.2024 the appellant was earlier referred to and treated in Victoria hospital from 20.02.2024 to 27.02.2024 under IP No.273699 and was diagnosed with the following:
Subsequent to that he was examined before the Medical Board on 13.11.2024. Such severe medical condition is not found by
the Medical Board. Further as per the report of the Chief Medical Officer, Central Prison dated 20.11.2024 for one week the appellant had not received medicines from his family members and he had not brought that aspect to the notice of the prison hospital. Thereafter he was provided with medicines regularly and his health status is stable.
NC: 2024:KHC:50880-DB CRL.A No.1812/2024
to secure medicines from the family members, if the Medical Officer considers the same necessary. It was further submitted that the appellant opted to take the combination medicines of his preference. Therefore, he was permitted to take such medicines. On enquiry the appellant’s counsel submitted that the family members could not afford to provide the medicines for the said period. Ultimately it is submitted that the required medicines are being provided by the Medical Officer of the Central Prison. This circumstance goes to show that the appellant’s family members themselves are not able to provide him required medicines. That creates doubt, if at all interim bail is granted, the appellant is able to get required medication. Whereas in the Central Prison he is being taken to Sri Jayadeva Institute of Cardiovascular Sciences and Research Hospital which has advanced treatment in Karnataka.
treatment in specialized hospital and family members are allowed to take care of the appellant, if he is admitted in such hospital for treatment. The aforesaid circumstance shows that there is sufficient force in the submission of the Public Prosecutor that by filing interim bail application, appellant is trying to achieve indirectly which he could not achieve under the bail application.
NC: 2024:KHC:50880-DB CRL.A No.1812/2024
Court. But, at present no such ground is made out. Hence the following:
ORDER
The appeal is dismissed.
Sd/(K.S.MUDAGAL) JUDGE
Sd/(VIJAYAKUMAR PATIL) JUDGE
Akc/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the appellant accused under UAP Act was entitled to interim bail on medical grounds despite a prior rejection of his bail application.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Vijay Agrawal Through Parokar vs. Directorate of EnforcementDistinguished¶17
Bail Appln.1762/2022 (DD 29.05.2023)
Ziya Ur Rehman vs. National Investigation AgencyDistinguished¶17
Crl.A.No.6/2024 (DD 31.01.2024)
6 provisions across 5 enactments
M Sadiq Basha
National Investigation Agency
K.S. Mudagal
Vijaykumar A. Patil
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
