Telangana High Court
Abdul Saleem vs Union Of India on 9 October, 2025
Author: K. Lakshman
Bench: K. Lakshman
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
AND
HON'BLE JUSTICE B.R. MADHUSUDHAN RAO
CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos.923 & 924 OF 2025 AND 931 OF 2024
COMMON JUDGMENT:(Per Hon'ble Sri Justice K. Lakshman) Heard Mr. V. Raghunath, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. T. Rahul, learned counsel for the appellants - accused Nos.2 and 3 in Crl.A. Nos.923 and 924 of 2025, Mr. Muzafferullah Khan, learned counsel for the appellant - accused No.4 in Crl.A. No.931 of 2024 and Mr. P. Vishnuvardhan Reddy, learned Special Public Prosecutor for National Investigation Agency (NIA) appearing on behalf of the respondent.
2. These Criminal Appeals are filed under Section - 21 of the National Investigation Agency (NIA) Act, 2008 by the appellants herein. The appellants herein are arraigned as accused Nos.2 to 4 respectively in Spl. S.C. NO.01 of 2023.
3. Vide impugned orders dated 02.06.2025. 22.07.2025 and 20.09.2024 in Crl.M.P.No.446 of 2025 in Spl. S.C. No.04 of 2023, Crl.M.P. No.507 of 2025 in Spl. S.C. No.04 of 2023 and Crl.M.P. 2 KL,J & BRMR,J Crl.A. No.923 of 2025 & batch No.1215 of 2024 in Spl. S.C. No.01 of 2023, respectively, learned IV Additional Sessions Judge - cum - Special Court for NIA Cases, Nampally, Hyderabad (for short 'Designated Court'), dismissed the bail applications filed by the appellants.
4. The offences alleged against the appellants herein - accused Nos.2 and 3 are under Sections - 120B and 153A of IPC and Sections
- 13 (1) (b), 17, 18, 18-A and 18-B of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act,1967 (for short 'UAPA, 1967'), and the offences alleged against the appellant - accused No.4 are under Sections - 120B, 121(A), 153-A & 141 read with 34 IPC and Sections - 13(1)(b), 18-A & 18-B of the UAPA, 1967.
5. The allegations levelled against the appellants herein are as follows:
i) With regard to accused No.2, he is the State General Secretary of Popular Front of India (PFI) for Telangana. He was recruiting impressionable Muslim Youth into PFI by instigating them against the leaders of Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) / Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and other Hindu Organizations. He was motivating these Muslim Youth for violent Jihad and unlawful activities. After recruiting them into PFI, accused No.2 sent them to 3 KL,J & BRMR,J Crl.A. No.923 of 2025 & batch Terror Camps organized by PFI at different places wherein newly joined PFI Members were given weapons training and abetted to assassinate the leaders of BJP/RSS/Durga Vahini/Shivaji Sena and other Hindu organizations by attacking them on vital body parts with dangerous weapons such as knife and sickle.
ii) With regard to accused No.3, he is a hardcore PF1 Cadre and Physical Efficiency (PE) Instructor for basic and advance/secondary training course run by PFI in its terror camps. He was imparting physical training to the newly recruited PFI members wherein he trained them in the use of dangerous weapons, such as knife, iron rods and sickle, better known with the secret terminology of the three books i.e., Book-1, Book-2 and Book-3, to murder a person by attacking his vital body parts. It was revealed from the statements of witnesses that this training was being given as preparation to commit violent terrorist activities and assassinating the leaders of RSS/BJP/Bajrang Dal, Durga Vahini and other Hindu organizations.
iii) With regard to accused No.4 he is also a hardcore PFI Cadre in Jagtial District and he was recruiting impressionable Muslim Youth into PFI by instigating them against the leaders of BJP/RSS and 4 KL,J & BRMR,J Crl.A. No.923 of 2025 & batch other Hindu organizations. He was motivating these Muslim Youth for violent Jihad and unlawful activities. After recruiting them into PFI, accused No.4 sent them to the terror camps organized by PFI at different places wherein the newly joined PFI members were given weapons training and abetted to assassinate the leaders of BJP/RSS/Durga Vahini/Shivaji Sena and other Hindu by attacking them on vital body parts with dangerous weapons, such as knife, iron rods and sickle.
6. The Investigating Officer filed charge sheet on 29.12.2022 by showing the appellants herein - accused Nos.2 to 4 as 'absconding'.
7. It is apt to note that vide common judgment dated 20.03.2024 in Crl.A. No.912 of 2023 & batch, this Court granted bail to accused Nos.5, 7, 16, 24, 28 and 32 to 35 on imposition of certain conditions.
8. Challenging the said orders, NIA preferred SLP (Crl.) Nos.5749 to 5756 of 2024 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Vide order dated 30.04.2025, the Apex Court passed the following order:
"1. It is sought to be submitted by the learned counsel, Mr. Annam Venkatesh appearing for the petitioner - NIA that 5 KL,J & BRMR,J Crl.A. No.923 of 2025 & batch the impugned order passed by the High Court is in the teeth of the judgments of this Court, particularly, in the case of "Barkathullah Vs. Union of India (2019) 5 SCC 1". He further submits that the trial is not being proceeded as some of the accused are absconding and the accused, who have been granted bail, keep on filing the applications one after the other before the Trial Court as well as in the High Court.
2. However, the said submissions have been refuted by the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents.
3. Having regard to the seriousness of the allegations and to the fact that the F.I.R. is of the date 04.07.2022 and that there is no progress made in the trial of the case, we hereby direct the Trial Court to proceed further with the trial in accordance with law, by separating the trial of the accused, who are absconding, as may be legally permissible.
4. It goes without saying that the petitioner shall be at liberty to file application for cancellation of the bail if the respondents or any other accused, who are released on bail, do not cooperate with the Trial Court in proceeding further with the trial.
5. In order to see the progress of the trial, list the matters in the first week of August, 2025.
6. It is further clarified that the impugned order shall not be cited as a precedent for granting bail to the other accused till the pendency of these petitions."6
KL,J & BRMR,J Crl.A. No.923 of 2025 & batch Thereafter, vide order dated 15.09.2025, the Apex Court dismissed the said SLPs.
9. The appellants herein filed bail applications before the Designated Court and the same were dismissed by the Designated Court vide the aforesaid orders. Challenging the said orders, the appellants preferred the present appeals contending as follows:
(i) They are also standing on the very same footing as that of accused Nos.5, 7, 16, 24, 28 and 32 to 35, and to maintain parity, they are also entitled for bail;
(ii) Vide common judgment dated 20.03.2024 passed by this Court granting bail to accused Nos.5, 7, 16, 24, 28 and 32 to 35 attained finality in view of dismissal of SLPs filed by the NIA;
(iii) The Investigating Officer in the subject crime has already completed investigation and laid charge sheet and also supplementary charge sheet against all the accused;
(iv) Even according to NIA, investigation in the subject crime has been completed and there is no further investigation; 7
KL,J & BRMR,J Crl.A. No.923 of 2025 & batch
(v) Appellant - accused No.2 is in jail from 08.01.2025, appellant - accused No.3 is in jail from 28.01.2025 and appellant - accused No.4 is in jail from 02.03.2024;
(vi) They are unaware of registration of the aforesaid crime and pendency of the present proceedings before the Designated Court. Therefore, the Investigating Agency cannot contend that the appellants are absconding;
(vii) Accused Nos.2 and 3 were surrendered themselves before the Designated Court on 08.01.2025 and 28.01.2025 respectively. The NIA Police arrested accused No.4 on 02.03.2024. Therefore, the Investigating Agency cannot contend that the appellants herein were absconding;
(viii) Accused Nos.2 and 3 are laymen and hail from a respected family and are AC Technicians, while accused No.4 is also a layman and hails from a respected family and is a businessman doing his furniture business;
(ix) There is no possibility of concluding trial in Special S.C. No.4 of 2023 within near proximity; and 8 KL,J & BRMR,J Crl.A. No.923 of 2025 & batch
(x) Without considering the said aspects, vide the aforesaid orders, the Designated Court dismissed the bail applications filed by them.
10. Whereas, the NIA has filed counter contending that the appellants herein - accused Nos.2 to 4 are standing on a different footing. Reward of Rs.2.00 lakh was declared by the NIA against each of the absconding accused through wide publicity. With great difficulty, the NIA Police arrested accused No.4 in a remote village of Kadapa District. There are serious allegations against the appellants herein. Accused No.4 was involved in three more criminal cases. In the event of release of the appellants on bail, there is every possibility of their absconding and in such an event the Designated Court may not be in a position to complete trial in the present case. Considering the fact of absconding of the appellants herein, the Designated Court has already split up the case and assigned as Special S.C. No.4 of 2023. On arresting of accused No.4 and on surrendering of accused Nos.2 and 3, the split up Special S.C. No.4 of 2023 was merged with the original Special S.C. No.1 of 2023. On consideration of the said aspects only, the Designated Court dismissed the bail applications 9 KL,J & BRMR,J Crl.A. No.923 of 2025 & batch filed by the appellants. There is no error in it. Therefore, NIA sought to dismiss the appeals.
11. Both learned Senior Counsel appearing for accused Nos.2 and 3, learned counsel appearing for accused No.4 and learned Special Public Prosecutor for NIA made their submissions extensively. They have also placed reliance on the principle laid down in Jalaluddin Khan v. Union of India1; Athar Parwez v. Union of India 2 and Union of India rep.by the Inspector of Police, NIC, Chennai Branch v. Barakathullah etc.3.
12. In the light of the aforesaid submissions, it is apt to note that the offences under Sections - 120B and 153A of IPC and Sections
- 13 (1) (b), 17, 18, 18-A and 18-B of the UAPA, 1967 are alleged against accused Nos.2 and 3, while the offences under Sections - 120B, 121(A), 153-A & 141 read with 34 IPC and Sections - 13(1)(b), 18-A & 18-B of the UAPA, 1967 are alleged against accused No.4.
13. It is the case of the NIA that a raid was conducted in the house of accused No.1 by the police of VI Town Police Station, Nizamabad on 04.07.2022 and found relevant literature which is 1 . 2024 INSC 604 2 . 2024 INSC 995 3 . 2024 INSC 452 10 KL,J & BRMR,J Crl.A. No.923 of 2025 & batch against the internal security of India and the same was banned. Therefore, a case in Crime No.141 of 2022 was registered by the said police under Sections - 120B, 121A, 153A and 141 read with 34 of IPC and Section - 13 (1) (b) of UAPA Act was registered against accused No.1 and 26 others. In the light of seriousness of allegations, keeping in view internal security of the Country, investigation of the said case was entrusted to NIA by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India vide order F.No.11011/73/2022/NIA, dated 25.08.2022. Pursuant to the said proceedings, the NIA re-registered a case in RC-03/2022/NIA/HYD for the aforesaid offences.
14. As discussed above, the Investigating Officer on completion of investigation laid charge sheet against eleven (11) accused including the appellants herein on 29.12.2022 by showing the appellants herein as 'absconding'. NIA has also filed supplementary charge sheet on 16.03.2023 against accused Nos.32 to 36. The offences alleged against accused Nos.2 and 3 are under Sections - 120B and 153A of IPC and Sections - 13 (1) (b), 17, 18, 18-A and 18- B of the UAPA, 1967 under Sections - 120B, 121(A), 153-A & 141 read with 34 IPC and Sections - 13(1)(b), 18-A & 18-B of the UAPA, 1967 against accused No.4. The present appeals are filed under 11 KL,J & BRMR,J Crl.A. No.923 of 2025 & batch Section - 21 of the NIA Act, 2008. Therefore, this Court has to consider the following twin conditions:
(i) Providing an opportunity to the Public Prosecutor of being heard on the application for release; and
(ii) Court has to give a finding that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against such person is prima facie true;
in terms of Section - 43-D (5) of the UAPA Act, 1967, which is extracted as under:
"43D. Modified application of certain provisions of the Code.--
(1) XXXXX (2) XXXXX (3) XXXXX (4) XXXXX (5) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code, no person accused of an offence punishable under Chapters IV and VI of this Act shall, if in custody, be released on bail or on his own bond unless the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity of being heard on the application for such release:
Provided that such accused person shall not be released on bail or on his own bond if the Court, on a perusal of the case diary or the report made under section 173 of the Code is of the opinion that there are 12 KL,J & BRMR,J Crl.A. No.923 of 2025 & batch reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against such person is prima facie true."
15. In the present case, this Court put the NIA on notice. On receipt of the notice in the aforesaid three (03) appeals, NIA has also filed counters, synopsis and written arguments. This Court heard Mr. P. Vishnuvardhan Reddy, learned Special Public Prosecutor for NIA. This first condition has been complied with.
16. With regard to second condition, as discussed above, the allegations levelled against the appellants are as stated above. This Court vide common judgment dated 20.03.2024 in Crl.A. No.912 of 2023 & batch, granted bail to accused Nos.5, 7, 16, 24, 28 and 32 to 35 on imposition of certain conditions. Challenging the said common judgment, the NIA filed SLPs and the same were dismissed by the Apex Court vide order dated 15.09.2025. Thus, the said common judgment passed by this Court granting bail to accused Nos.5, 7, 16, 24, 28 and 32 to 35 has attained finality. Placing reliance on the said common judgment, the Designated Court granted bail to accused Nos.1, 17, 29, 31 and 36 on imposition of certain conditions. Challenging the said order granting bail to accused Nos.1, 17, 29, 31 and 36 by the Designated Courte, the NIA has not preferred any 13 KL,J & BRMR,J Crl.A. No.923 of 2025 & batch appeal. Therefore, the appellants herein are also seeking bail on parity.
17. Learned Special Public Prosecutor for NIA opposed the present appeals contending that the appellants are standing on different footing since they were absconding earlier. They have not co-operated with the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation. Therefore, the Investigating Officer laid charge sheet against them by showing them as 'absconding'. The Designated Court has already issued Non-Bailable Warrant (NBW) against accused No.4. With great difficulty on making hectic efforts, the NIA Police arrested accused No.4 only on 02.03.2024 and, thereafter, accused Nos.2 and 3 were surrendered before the Designated Court. Therefore, they cannot seek the bail on the ground of 'parity' with other accused.
18. Whereas, learned senior counsel for the appellants would submit that the appellants are unaware of pendency of the aforesaid crime and also the proceedings before the Designated Court in Spl.S.C. No.1 of 2023. Therefore, the NIA cannot contend that the appellants absconded. They would further submit that accused Nos.2 14 KL,J & BRMR,J Crl.A. No.923 of 2025 & batch and 3 on coming to know about pendency of the proceedings in the present case surrendered themselves before the Designated Court on 08.01.2025 and 28.01.2025 respectively.
19. In the light of the aforesaid submissions, it is apt to note that as stated above, the police of VI Town Police Station, Nizamabad, conducted a raid in the house of accused No.1 on 04.07.2022 and found relevant literature which is against the internal security of India and the same was banned. Therefore, a case in Crime No.141 of 2022 was registered by the said police under Sections - 120B, 121A, 153A and 141 read with 34 of IPC and Section - 13 (1) (b) of UAPA Act was registered against accused No.1 and 26 others. As per the charge sheet, in one of the hand-written documents (classmate note book) seized from the house of accused No.1, the name of accused No.4 is mentioned, wherein it is written that accused No.4 is the South Telangana Secretary, Admin. Team Member in Jagtial and new FA (Final Assessment) Class Taker. During house search of accused No.4, one pocket diary suspected to contain his hand-writing was also seized containing some handwritten notes on two pages. On one of the pages, 'First' is written on top under which the same points are 15 KL,J & BRMR,J Crl.A. No.923 of 2025 & batch written which are told in the first class of radicalization for recruiting persons into PFI.
20. It is also apt to note that the police have raided the house of accused No.1 and seized certain documents. Basing on the said information, they have conducted search of house of accused No.4. Therefore, accused No.4 cannot contend that he has no knowledge of about registration of present crime by the Police and entrustment of investigation to NIA. Though the aforesaid crime was initially registered by VI Town Police of Nizamabad, the investigation of the said crime was entrusted to NIA on 26.08.2022 in terms of order dated 25.08.2022 issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India. Accused No.4 was absconding. The Investigating Officer in the said crime has filed charge sheet on 29.12.2022 showing accused No.4 as 'absconding'. NIA has also announced a reward of Rs.2.00 lakhs on absconding accused each including accused No.4. The Designated Court also issued NBW against accused No.4. Even then, accused No.4 did not surrender before the Designated Court and co- operate with the said Court in proceeding with trial. The said fact was brought to the notice of the Apex Court while hearing the aforesaid SLPs filed by the NIA. Vide order dated 30.04.2025, the Apex Court 16 KL,J & BRMR,J Crl.A. No.923 of 2025 & batch directed the Designated Court to proceed further with trial in accordance with law by separating the trial of the accused, who are absconding, as may be legally permissible. Accordingly, the Designated Court split the aforesaid Special S.C. No.1 of 2023 against the appellants and assigned another Special S.C. No.4 of 2023. Thereafter, on arrest of accused No.4 and on surrender of accused Nos.2 and 3, the said Spl. S.C. No.4 of 2023 was merged with the original Spl.S.C. No.1 of 2023. Thus, accused No.4 did not co- operate with the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation and the Designated Court during the course of trial. Therefore, he absconded from 29.12.2022 till 02.03.2024. On consideration of the said aspects only, the trial Court dismissed the bail application filed by accused No.4.
21. With regard to accused Nos.2 and 3, it is apt to note that accused No.2 is the State General Secretary of the PFI for Telangana. The allegations levelled against him are that he was recruiting impressionable Muslim Youth into PFI by instigating them against the leaders of the BJP/RSS and other Hindu Organizations. He was motivating these Muslim Youth for violent Jihad and unlawful activities. After recruiting them into PFI, accused No.2 sent them to 17 KL,J & BRMR,J Crl.A. No.923 of 2025 & batch Terror Camps organized by PFI at different places. There is also an allegation that he has collected money and deposited into his SBI A/c No.62238165610. He has received Rs.3.1 lakhs from PFI's SBI, Chandrayangutta A/c No.32956621082 between August, 2017 and March, 2021. He has utilized the said amount for running the terror camps of PFI. Protected witnesses, whose statements were recorded under Section 164 (4) of Cr.P.C., also stated the said facts. His name was mentioned on the cover of three note-pads/diaries seized from the house of accused No.1 on 04.07.2022.
22. In the charge sheet, it is specifically mentioned that the Call Details Record (CDR) analysis of accused No.2 revealed that he was in contact with accused Nos.1, 3 to 6, 17, 24, 28 and 29. Therefore, accused No.2 cannot contend that he has no knowledge about registration of the aforesaid crime by VI Town Police Station, Nizamabad, and, thereafter entrustment of investigation to NIA and pendency of present case before the Designated Court. He cannot contend that he surrendered before the Designated Court on 08.01.2025.
18
KL,J & BRMR,J Crl.A. No.923 of 2025 & batch
23. With regard to accused No.3, the allegations levelled against him are that he is a hardcore PF1 Cadre and PE Instructor for basic and advance/secondary training course run by PFI in its terror camps. Accused No.3 was imparting physical training to the newly recruited PFI members wherein he trained them in the use of dangerous weapons, such as knife, iron rods and sickle, better known with the secret terminology of the three books i.e., Book-1, Book-2 and Book-3, to murder a person by attacking his vital body parts. The protected witnesses also stated the aforesaid facts. His CDR was also collected which would reveal that he was in touch with accused Nos.1, 2, 17 and 31. Therefore, accused No.3 cannot contend that he was unaware of registration of crime by VI Town Police Station and, thereafter, entrustment to NIA Police and pendency of present proceedings before the Designated Court.
24. As discussed above, the PFI was banned on 27.09.2022 by way of issuing Notification. On consideration of the said aspects and also provisions of the NIA, the allegations levelled against them, principle laid down by the Apex Court and various High Courts vide common judgment dated 20.03.2024 in Crl.A. No.912 of 2023 and batch, this Court granted bail to accused Nos.5, 7, 16, 24, 28 and 32 to 19 KL,J & BRMR,J Crl.A. No.923 of 2025 & batch 35 on imposition of certain conditions. In the said common judgment, this Court also considered the fact that as on the date of participation of the accused in acts alleged to be illegal as PFI Members, PFI was not banned as it was banned only on 27.09.2022 by the Central Government. This Court also considered the fact that they were arrested by the police; they were taken into police custody and interrogated at length. The entire investigation was completed, the Investigating Officer laid charge sheet and supplementary charge sheets against them by NIA. The accused therein were arrested on 06.07.2022, 19.09.2022 and 22.09.2022 respectively. They were in jail. The Designated Court is not going to complete trial in the said Special S.C. in the near proximity. On consideration of the said aspects, vide common judgment dated 20.03.2024, this Court granted bail to accused Nos.5, 7, 16, 24, 28 and 32 to 35. Whereas, in the present case, accused No.4 was absconding from the date of registration of crime by VI Town Police Station, Nizamabad and thereafter entrustment of investigation to NIA and filing of charge sheet on 29.12.2022. It is not in dispute that NIA announced Rs.2.00 lakhs reward on each of absconding accused including accused No.4. It is also not in dispute that he was arrested only on 02.03.2024 by 20 KL,J & BRMR,J Crl.A. No.923 of 2025 & batch NIA Police in a remote village of Kadapa District, Andhra Pradesh State. A search was conducted in the house of accused No.4. Therefore, he cannot contend that he is unaware of pendency of the present proceedings. Thus, this Court is of the considered view that accused No.4 has absconded intentionally, did not co-operate with the Investigating Officer and the Designated Court. In fact, he is resident of Islampura of Jagtial and NIA arrested him in a remote village of Kadapa. Therefore, he cannot claim parity with other accused.
25. With regard to accused Nos.2 and 3, they were also absconding for the aforesaid period. However, they have surrendered on their own before the Designated Court on 08.01.2025 and 28.01.2025 respectively. They were not in a position to explain the date and source of knowledge of pendency of the aforesaid proceedings. As discussed above, they cannot contend that they are unaware of registration of crime by VI Town Police Station of Nizamabad, entrustment of the same to NIA and pendency of present proceedings before the Designated Court etc. They were absconding during pendency of crime and during pendency of the Special S.C. No.4 of 2023 intentionally. They have not co-operated with the Investigating Officer in concluding investigation and with the 21 KL,J & BRMR,J Crl.A. No.923 of 2025 & batch Designated Court. Accused No.2 has received an amount of Rs.3.1 lakhs from PFI account from August, 2017 to March, 2021 and utilized for running terror camps. By the said date, the aforesaid crime was registered, investigation was entrusted to NIA. Therefore, accused No.2 cannot contend that he is unaware of the present proceedings.
26. Accused No.3 is also in touch with accused No.2, 4 and other accused and CDR collected and analyzed would reveal the said fact. Therefore, he cannot contend that he is unaware of the present proceedings. He has also absconded intentionally. Thus, both accused Nos.2 and 3 cannot claim parity along with other accused.
27. At the cost of repetition, it is apt to note that pursuant to the directions of the Apex Court dated 30.04.2025 in SLP (Crl.) Nos.5749-5756 of 2024, the Designated Court split up the Special S.C. No.1 of 2023 against the appellants herein and assigned Spl.S.C. No.4 of 2023, and on arrest of accused No.4 and surrender of accused Nos.2 and 3, the said Spl.S.C. No.4 of 2023 was merged with Spl.S.C. No.1 of 2023. It is also not in dispute that accused No.4 was involved in three (03) more cases. It is the contention of learned counsel for 22 KL,J & BRMR,J Crl.A. No.923 of 2025 & batch accused No.4 that out of the said three (3) crimes, two (02) crimes were quashed by this Court in Crl.P. Nos.1337 and 3547 of 2025.
28. In Jalaluddin Khan1, the Apex Court held in paragraph No.21, which is as under:
"21. Before we part with the Judgment, we must mention here that the Special Court and the High Court did not consider the material in the charge sheet objectively. Perhaps the focus was more on the activities of PFI, and therefore, the appellant's case could not be properly appreciated. When a case is made out for a grant of bail, the Courts should not have any hesitation in granting bail. The allegations of the prosecution may be very serious. But, the duty of the Courts is to consider the case for grant of bail in accordance with the law. "Bail is the rule and jail is an exception" is a settled law. Even in a case like the present case where there are stringent conditions for the grant of bail in the relevant statutes, the same rule holds good with only modification that the bail can be granted if the conditions in the statute are satisfied. The rule also means that once a case is made out for the grant of bail, the Court cannot decline to grant bail. If the Courts start denying bail in deserving cases, it will be a violation of the rights guaranteed under Article 21 of our Constitution.".
29. Placing reliance on the aforesaid judgment, the Apex Court in Athar Parwez2 held as under:
23
KL,J & BRMR,J Crl.A. No.923 of 2025 & batch "27. The Court had further gone to the extent of saying and rightly so that in the charge sheet there is no allegation that the Appellant was a member of a terrorist gang or organisation. It is worth mentioning here that the PFI of which the Appellant was a member has not been declared a terrorist organisation within the meaning of Section 2(m) of the UAPA, 1967. It was also found that the PFI is not mentioned as a terrorist organisation in the first schedule of UAPA, 1967. The charge sheet and the statement of witness 'Z' when seen as it is, it would not be possible to record prima facie finding that commission of offence under the UAPA, 1967 would be attracted as there are no reasonable grounds for believing that the accusations are prima facie correct."
30. While granting bail to accused Nos.5, 7, 16, 24, 28 and 32 to 35 in Crl.A. No.912 of 2023 & batch, this Court also considered the principle laid down by the Apex Court in Barakathullah3.
31. It is a settled proposition of law that while considering bail applications of co-accused, the Court must maintain consistency in its approach and adhere to the principle of parity. The said principle, flowing from Article 14 of the Constitution of India, which mandates that similarly situated accused, against whom the allegations, nature of evidence, and role attributed are identical, should ordinarily receive 24 KL,J & BRMR,J Crl.A. No.923 of 2025 & batch similar treatment in the matter of bail. The test of parity, however, is not mechanical but comparative, it requires the Court to assess whether the factual foundation, evidentiary material, and degree of participation of the applicant and other relevant circumstances are substantially the same as those of the co-accused who has been granted bail. Where such identity exists, denial of bail to one while granting it to another would amount to arbitrariness and offend the guarantee of equality before law.
32. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tarun Kumar v. Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement 4, has authoritatively clarified that parity, though a relevant consideration is not an inflexible rule of law. The Court held that "while applying the principle of parity, the focus must be upon the role attached to the accused whose application is under consideration." Parity does not extend to cases where the role, conduct, or antecedents of the applicant are materially distinct, such as abscondence, non-cooperation with investigation, or additional incriminating material found during inquiry. Therefore, though earlier orders of bail in favour of co-accused may guide judicial discretion, 4 2023 INSC 1006 25 KL,J & BRMR,J Crl.A. No.923 of 2025 & batch they cannot compel an identical outcome unless the factual parity is complete and bona fide.
Relevant paragraphs from the judgment are extracted below "19. It is axiomatic that the principle of parity is based on the guarantee of positive equality before law enshrined in Article 14 of the 20 Constitution. However, if any illegality or irregularity has been committed in favour of any individual or a group of individuals, or a wrong order has been passed by a judicial forum, others cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the higher or superior court for repeating or multiplying the same irregularity or illegality or for passing similar wrong order. Article 14 is not meant to perpetuate the illegality or irregularity. If there has been a benefit or advantage conferred on one or a set of people by any authority or by the court, without legal basis or justification, other persons could not claim as a matter of right the benefit on the basis of such wrong decision.
20. It is also difficult to countenance the submission of learned Counsel Mr. Luthra that the investigation qua the appellant is complete and the trial of the cases likely to take long time. According to him the appellant ought not to be incarcerated indefinitely merely because the investigation is kept open with regard to the other accused. In this regard, it may be noted that the appellant has not been able to 26 KL,J & BRMR,J Crl.A. No.923 of 2025 & batch overcome the threshold stipulations contemplated in Section 45 namely he has failed to prima facie prove that he is not guilty of the alleged offence and is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. It cannot be gainsaid that the burden of proof lies on the accused for 21 the purpose of the condition set out in the Section 45 that he is not guilty of such offence. Of course, such discharge of burden could be on the probabilities, nonetheless in the instant case there being sufficient material on record adduced by the respondent showing the thick involvement of the appellant in the alleged offence of money laundering under Section 3 of the said Act, the Court is not inclined to grant bail to the appellant."
33. Therefore, the appellants herein having absconded during pendency of crime and the present Special S.C. No.1 of 2023 from 29.12.2022, cannot claim 'parity' with other accused, whom this Court and the Designated Court granted bails. There is every possibility of the appellants absconding from trial in which event the Designated Court will not be in a position to proceed with trial in Spl. S.C. No.1 of 2023. Therefore, on consideration of the said aspects only, the Designated Court dismissed the bail applications filed by the appellants herein - accused Nos.2 to 4. There is no error in it. The 27 KL,J & BRMR,J Crl.A. No.923 of 2025 & batch appellants failed to make out any case to grant bail to them. Thus, the present appeals are liable to be dismissed.
34. The present Criminal Appeals are accordingly dismissed. However, this order will not preclude the appellants in approaching the Designated Court renewing their request for bail showing change of circumstances and it is for the Designated Court to consider and dispose of the same strictly in accordance with law.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in the appeals shall stand closed.
___________________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J ____________________________ B.R. MADHUSUDHAN RAO, J 9th October, 2025 Mgr