Karnataka High Court
Mr. M. Sadiq Basha vs National Investigation Agency on 26 April, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:17331-DB
WP No. 6515 of 2025
C/W WP No. 6516 of 2025
WP No. 6522 of 2025
AND 5 OTHERS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
WRIT PETITION NO. 6515 OF 2025 (GM-RES)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NOS. 6516 OF 2025(GM-RES),
6522 OF 2025(GM-RES), 6551 OF 2025(GM-RES),
7017 OF 2025(GM-RES), 7037 OF 2025(GM-RES),
8508 OF 2025(GM-RES), 11206 OF 2025 (GM-RES)
IN WRIT PETITION NO. 6515 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
1. NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY,
BENGALURU
REPRESENTED BY ITS SUPERINTENDENT
Digitally signed by
VEERENDRA OF POLICE, BRANCH OFFICE
KUMAR K M BENGALURU, INDIRANAGAR,
Location: HIGH BENGALURU, KARNATAKA - 560 038
COURT OF ...PETITIONER
KARNATAKA
(BY SRI. PRASANNA KUMAR P., SPL.P.P.)
AND:
1. MR. FAIROZ PASHA
S/O. MR. ANWAR BASHA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO. 155,
4TH MAIN, KOUSAR NAGAR,
DINNUR, R.T. NAGAR,
BENGALURU-32.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:17331-DB
WP No. 6515 of 2025
C/W WP No. 6516 of 2025
WP No. 6522 of 2025
AND 5 OTHERS
2. MR. MUZAMMIL PASHA
S/O. LATE MR. SYED MUMTAZ
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
RESIDING AT H.NO. 1727,
1ST STAGE, 2ND BLOCK,
7TH CROSS, YASEEN NAGAR,
HBR LAYOUT, BEHIND USMANIA MASJID,
BENGALURU,
KARNATAKA - 43
3. MR. SYED ABBAS
S/O MR. SYED IMTIYAAZ
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO. 5,
MBS MANSON,
15TH CROSS, GOVINDAPURA,
AC POST, BENGALURU,
KARNATAKA - 45
4. MR. HABEEB UR REHMAN
S/O MR. ABDUL MAZEED
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO. 286,
14TH CROSS, GOVINDAPURA,
AC POST, BENGALURU,
KARNATAKA - 45
5. MR. PEER PASHA
S/O LATE MR. ABDUL MAZEED
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO. 827/B,
14TH CROSS,
NEAR FARIDA SHOE FACTORY,
GOVINDAPURA, MAIN ROAD,
AC POST, BENGALURU,
KARNATAKA - 45
6. MR. ZIYA UR REHMAN @ ZIYA
S/O MR. MOHAMMED SAB
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:17331-DB
WP No. 6515 of 2025
C/W WP No. 6516 of 2025
WP No. 6522 of 2025
AND 5 OTHERS
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO. 14,
4TH CROSS, BYARAPPA LAYOUT,
GOVINDAPURA MAIN ROAD,
AC POST, BENGALURU,
KARNATAKA - 45
7. MR. FIROZ PASHA
S/O LATE MR. ALLABAKSHA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.536,
9TH CROSS, UMAR NAGAR,
GOVINDAPURA, BENGALURU,
KARNATAKA - 45
8. MR. IMRAN AHMED
S/O MR. ELYAS AHMED
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
RESIDING AT 28, 7TH B CROSS,
KAVERI NARGAR,
RT NAGAR POST,
BENGALURU, KARNATAKA - 32
9. MR. SAMIUDDIN S R @ SAMI
S/O LATE MR. RAFEEQ S A,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
RESIDING AT 294, 6TH MAIN,
3RD BLOCK, HBR LAYOUT,
BENGALURU, KARNATAKA - 32
10. MR. MOHAMMED SIRAJUDDIN
S/O MR. SHAYK MOHIUDDIN
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.436,
6TH CROSS, MASJID E KHAIR,
VINOBHA NAGAR,
BENGALURU NORTH,
ARABIC COLLEGE,
BENGALURU, KARNATAKA - 45
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:17331-DB
WP No. 6515 of 2025
C/W WP No. 6516 of 2025
WP No. 6522 of 2025
AND 5 OTHERS
11. MR. RUBAH WAQAS
S/O MR. KHALAQ SHARIFF
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.26/2,
12TH A CROSS, SONNAPPA BLOCK
PILLANA GARDEN,
3RD STAGE, K G HALLI,
BENGALURU, KARNATAKA - 45
12. MR. SHABBAR KHAN
S/O MR. NAWAB KHAN
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
RESIDING AT NEAR QUBA MASJID,
3RD CROSS, NEAR ANWAR LAYOUT,
DJ HALLI, BENGALURU,
KARNATAKA 45
13. MR. SHAIK AJMAL
S/O MR. SHAIK RIYAZ
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
RESIDING AT D.NO.62,
12TH CROSS, VINOBHA NAGAR,
PILLANA GARDEN, KG HALLI,
BENGALURU, KARNATAKA - 45
14. MOHAMMED KALEEM AHMED
S/O MR. MOHAMMED JAFFAR
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.401,
4TH FLOOR, HONEY ENCLAVE,
NEAR PETROL BUNK,
SHAMPURA ROAD,
GANDHINAGAR, KG HALLI,
BENGALURU, KARNATAKA - 45
15. MR. NAQEEB PASHA
S/O MOHAMMED RAHAMATHULLA H
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
RESIDING AT D NO.18,
2ND MAIN, 4TH CROSS,
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:17331-DB
WP No. 6515 of 2025
C/W WP No. 6516 of 2025
WP No. 6522 of 2025
AND 5 OTHERS
EZIKAL INDUSTRIAL ESTATE,
KG HALLI, BENGALURU,
KARNATAKA - 45
16. MR. IMRAAN AHMED
S/O MR. NAZEER AHMED
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.702,
1ST MAIN, 3RD CROSS,
B STREET, VINOBHA NAGAR,
KG HALLI, BENGALURU NORTH,
BENGALURU ARABIC COLLEGE,
KARNATAKA - 45
17. MR. MOHAMMED AZHAR
S/O MR. MOHAMMED SHAUKAT
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
RESIDING AT NEAR NARENDRA THEATRE,
HBR LAYOUT, BENGALURU,
KARNATAKA - 43
18. MR. KAREEM @ SADAM
S/O BASHEER AHMED
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.7, 2ND CROSS,
KARUMARIYAMMA NAGAR,
VENKATESHPURAM,
BENGALURU, KARNATAKA - 45
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. C.V. NAGESH, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. MOHAMMED TAHIR, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH ARTICLE 482 OF CR.P.C.PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 10.02.2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED XLIX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (SPECIAL COURT FOR THE TRIAL OF NIA CASES) (CCH-50) AT BENGALURU IN SPL.C.C.No.141/2021 THEREBY PARTLY ALLOWING THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS/ ACCUSED Nos.1-13, 19, 21-24 (PRODUCED -6- NC: 2025:KHC:17331-DB WP No. 6515 of 2025 C/W WP No. 6516 of 2025 WP No. 6522 of 2025 AND 5 OTHERS VIDE ANNEXURE-A) AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE PETITION AND ETC.
IN WP NO. 6516/2025BETWEEN:
1. NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY, BENGALURU REPRESENTED BY ITS SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, BRANCH OFFICE, BENGALURU INDIRANAGAR, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA -560 038 ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRASANNA KUMAR P., SPL.P.P.) AND:
1. MUZAMMIL PASHA S/O SYED MUMTAZ, AGE 36 YEARS, R/O. 1727, 1ST STAGE, 2ND BLOCK, YASIN NAGAR, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA - 560 043
2. SYED MASOOD, S/O SYED AYAZ, AGE 39 YEARS, R/O 24/1, 15TH CROSS, DAVIS ROAD, SAGAIPURAM, TANNERY ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 005
3. SYED AYAZ, S/O LATE SYED KHALEEL, AGE 47 YEARS, R/O HOUSE NO. 58, KHALEEL COMPLEX, MODI ROAD, DJ HALLI, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA - 560 045 -7- NC: 2025:KHC:17331-DB WP No. 6515 of 2025 C/W WP No. 6516 of 2025 WP No. 6522 of 2025 AND 5 OTHERS
4. SUHAIL BASHA, S/O AMIR BASHA, AGE 32 YEARS R/O 306, 1ST CROSS, ASHWATHNAGAR UKBA MASJID STREET, THANISANDRA, BENGALURU - 560 077
5. RAKIB SHARIF, S/O AHAMED SHARIFF, AGE 37 YEARS, R/O 15/11, ALLAS ROAD, NEW EXTENSION, PILLANNA GARDEN, KG HALLI, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA-45
6. MOHAMMED ZAID, S/O MOHAMMED HUSSAIN, AGE 34 YEARS, R/O. 1271, BEHIND FATHIMA MASJID, FATHIMA LAYOUT, SARAIPALYA, THANISANDRA, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA - 45
7. MUDASIR AHAMED, S/O ASHFAQ AHMED, AGE 27 YEARS,R/O 772, GROUND FLOOR, 9TH MAIN, 3RD STAGE, PILLANNA GARDEN, BENGALURU - 560 084
8. SYED MUBARAK @ DICCHI MUBARAK, S/O SYED JAKRIYA, AGED 25 YEARS, R/O 41, 2ND CROSS, MODI ROAD, DJ HALLI, BENGALURU - 560 045 -8- NC: 2025:KHC:17331-DB WP No. 6515 of 2025 C/W WP No. 6516 of 2025 WP No. 6522 of 2025 AND 5 OTHERS
9. FAROOQ, S/O LATE ASADULLA, AGED 31 YEARS, R/O BESIDE BILAL MASJID, MARIYAMMA NAGAR, KG HALLI, BENGALURU - 560 045
10. ATEEQ AHMED, S/O SYED NAYAZ AHMED, AGED 30 YEARS, R/O 15/2, 18TH CROSS, COCONUT GARDEN HALL ROAD, SAGAIPURAM, DJ HALLI, BENGALURU - 560 045
11. SHAFI KHAN, S/O. M.H. ABDUL SHUKOOR, AGE 36 YEARS, R/O 106, 17TH CROSS, SAGAIPURAM, FRAZER TOWN, BENGALURU - 560 045
12. SHAHID PASHA VALI, S/O. MOHAMMED SAB, AGE 50 YEARS, R/O. 30/2, 18TH CROSS, HALL ROAD EXTENSION, SAGAIPURAM, BENGALURU - 560 045
13. FAIROZ PASHA, S/O ANWAR BASHA, AGED 47 YEARS, R/O 303, MODI ROAD, NEAR MACCA MASJID, TANK MOHALLA, DJ HALLI, BENGALURU - 560 045
14. FIRDOUS KHAN, S/O ILIYAS KHAN, AGE 45 YEARS, -9- NC: 2025:KHC:17331-DB WP No. 6515 of 2025 C/W WP No. 6516 of 2025 WP No. 6522 of 2025 AND 5 OTHERS R/O NEAR MEDISCOPE HOSPITAL, KG HALLI, BENGALURU - 560 045
15. TABREZ, S/O SHAIKH MAHABOOB, AGED 39 YEARS, R/O 13, 13TH CROSS, OLD BAGALUR LAYOUT, BENGALURU - 560 043
16. ABDUL BASEER, S/O ABDUL BASHEER, AGED 47 YEARS, R/O 71, 4TH CROSS, SHADAB NAGAR, KB SANDRA, BENGALURU - 560 032 ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. C.V. NAGESH, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. MOHAMMED TAHIR, ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO i)SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 10/02/2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED XLIX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (SPECIAL COURT FOR THE TRIAL OF NIA CASES) (CCH-50) AT BENGALURU IN SPL.CC NO.152/2021 THEREBY PARTLY ALLOWING THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED NOS.1-11, 15-19, 22-24 (PRODUCED VIDE ANNEXURE-A) AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE PETITION AND ii)PASS SUCH OTHER ORDERS AND ETC.IN WP NO. 6522/2025
BETWEEN:
1. NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY REPRESENTED BY ITS SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:17331-DB WP No. 6515 of 2025 C/W WP No. 6516 of 2025 WP No. 6522 of 2025 AND 5 OTHERS BRANCH OFFICE, BENGALURU INDIRANAGAR, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA - 560 038 ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRASANNA KUMAR P., SPL.P.P.) AND:
1. MAHAMMED SHIYAB S/O. MAHAMMAD SAJID, AGED 31 YEARS NO.7-109/1, NAVOOR HOUSE, SULYA KASABA, SULLIA TOWN, DAKSHINA KANNADA - 574 239
2. ABDUL BASHEER S/O MOHAMMED KUNHI, 29 YEARS, KARAVALI, ADKARU VILLAGE, YETTINAHOLE, ELIMALE, SULLIA TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA - 574 239
3. RIYAZ S/O ABDUL LATHEEF, AGED 28 YEARS, 2-137, ANKATHADKA HOUSE, PUTTUR TALUK, PALTHADI, DAKSHINA KANNADA - 574 239
4. MUSTAFA PAICHAR @ MAHMMAD MUSTHAF S S/O UMMAR, AGED 43 YEARS, 02-64, SHANTHINAGAR, SULLIA KASABA, SULLIA TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA - 574 239
5. NOUFAL M S/O MOHAMMAD T A,
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:17331-DB WP No. 6515 of 2025 C/W WP No. 6516 of 2025 WP No. 6522 of 2025 AND 5 OTHERS AGED 38 YEARS, THAMBINAMAKKI HOUSE, BELLARE POST, SULLIA TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA - 574 239
6. ISMAIL SHAFI K S/O ADAM KUNHI K, 1-53, KUNHIGUDDE, BELLARE VILLAGE, SULLIA TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA - 574 239
7. K MAHAMMAD IQBAL S/O ADAM KUNHI, R/O 1-53 KUNHI GUDDE, BELLARE VILLAGE, SULLIA TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA - 574 239
8. SHAHEED M S/O ABDUL KARIM, AGED 38 YEARS, NO.2-197(25), KALKATTA, MANGALANTHI, MANJANADY, MANGALANTHI, DAKSHINA KANNADA- 574 239
9. MAHAMMAD SHAFEEK G S/O IBRAHIM B A, AGED 28 YEARS, DARKHASTHU HOUSE, SULLIA TALUK, POST BELLARE, DAKSHINA KANNADA - 574 239
10. ABDUL KABEER C A S/O ABBAS, AGED 33 YEARS, 8-102/1, JATTIPALLA HOUSE NEAR MASIDI, SULLIA, DAKSHINA KANNADA - 574 239
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:17331-DB WP No. 6515 of 2025 C/W WP No. 6516 of 2025 WP No. 6522 of 2025 AND 5 OTHERS
11. MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM SHA S/O MOHAMMAD M A, AGED 23 YEARS, JEERMUKI HOUSE, NELLURUKEMRAJE VILLAGE AND POST, SULLIA TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA - 574 239
12. SAINUL ABID Y S/O YAKOOB, AGED 23 YEARS, 7-74 GANDINAGAR HOUSE, NAVOOR, SULLIA TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA - 574 239
13. SHEKH SADDAM HUSSAIN S/O SHEKH ABDUL RAHEED, AGED 28 YEARS, 5-12/4, BEEDU HOUSE BELLARE VILLAGE, SULLIA TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA - 574 239
14. ZAKIAR A S/O HANEEF, 1-168, ATHIKERE HOUSE AND VILLAGE, PUTTUR TALUK, SAVANUR, DAKSHINA KANNADA - 574 239
15. N ABDUL HARIS S/O N ISMAIL, AGED 40 YEARS, 5-22-5 BODU HOUSE, BELLARE POST AND VILLAGE, SULLIA TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA - 574 239
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:17331-DB WP No. 6515 of 2025 C/W WP No. 6516 of 2025 WP No. 6522 of 2025 AND 5 OTHERS
16. THUFAIL M H S/O HAMEED M H, 24/126, BEHAND GADDIGE, MADIKERI, KODAGU DISTRICT - 571 201 ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. C.V. NAGESH, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. MOHAMMED TAHIR, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO (i) SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 10.02.2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED XLIX ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSION JUDGE (SPECIAL COURT FOR THE TRIAL OF NIA CASES) (CCH-50) AT BENGALURU IN Spl. CC. No. 123/2023 THEREBY PARTLY ALLOWING THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED Nos. 1-4, 8-12, 14-20 (PRODUCED VIDE ANNEXURE A) AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE PETITION AND ETC.
IN WP NO. 6551/2025BETWEEN:
1. MAHAMMED SHIYAB S/O MAHAMMAD SAJID AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS R/AT NO. 7-109/1, NAVOOR HOUSE, KASABA, SULLIA TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA - 574 239
2. ABDUL BASHEER S/O MOHAMMED KUNJI AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS R/AT YETTINAHOLE, ELIMALE, SULLIA TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA - 574 239
3. RIYAZ S/O ABDUL LATHEEF
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:17331-DB WP No. 6515 of 2025 C/W WP No. 6516 of 2025 WP No. 6522 of 2025 AND 5 OTHERS AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R/AT 2-137, ANAKATHADKA HOUSE, PUTTUR TALUK, PALTHADI, DAKSHINA KANNADA - 574 239
4. MUSTAFA PAICHAR S/O UMMAR AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT NO.02-64, SHANTINAGAR SULLIA KASABA, SULLIA TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA - 574 239
5. NOUFAL M S/O MOHAMMED T A AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT TAMBINAMAKKI HOUSE, BELLARE POST, SULLIA TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA - 574 239
6. ISMAIL SHAFI K. S/O ADAM KUNHI K AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/AT GROUND FLOOR, SHAFI APARTMENT, BELLARE VIILAGE, SULLIA TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA - 574 239
7. K MOHAMMAD IQBAL @ IQBAL BELLARE S/O ADAM KUNHI K AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/AT GROUND FLOOR, SHAFI APARTMENT, BELLARE VIILAGE, SULLIA TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA - 574 239
8. SHAHEED M S/O ADAM KUNHI K
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:17331-DB WP No. 6515 of 2025 C/W WP No. 6516 of 2025 WP No. 6522 of 2025 AND 5 OTHERS AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT KUNHI GUNDE, HOUSE BELLARE POST, SULLIA TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA - 574 239
9. MOHAMMED SHAFEEK S/O MOHIDIN U AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/AT DARKHASTU HOUSE, BELLARE POST, SULLIA TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA - 574 239
10. ABDUL KABEER C.A. AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/AT 8-102/1, JATTIPALA HOSE, NEAR MASIDI, SULLIA, DAKSHINA KANNADA - 574 239
11. MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM SHA AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, R/AT JEERMUKHI HOUSE, NELLURUKEMRAJE VILLAGE, BELLARE POST, SULLIA TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA - 574 239
12. SAINUL ABID Y AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, R/AT GHANDI NAGAR HOUSE, NAVUR SULLIA TALUQ, SULLIA TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA - 574 239
13. SHEKH SADDAM HUSSAIN AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/AT 5-12/4 BEEDU HOUSE, BELLARE VILLAGE, SULLIA TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA - 574 239
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:17331-DB WP No. 6515 of 2025 C/W WP No. 6516 of 2025 WP No. 6522 of 2025 AND 5 OTHERS
14. ZAKIAR A @ ZAKIR AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/AT 1-168, ATHIKERE HOUSE, VIILAGE, PUTTUR TALUK, SAVNOOR, DAKSHINA KANNADA - 574 239
15. N. ABDUL HARIS AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/AT 5-22-5, BEEDU HOUSE, BELLARE POST AND VILLAGE, SULLIA TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA - 574 239
16. THUFAIL M H AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/AT 24/126, BEHIND GADDIGE, MADIKERI, KODAGU - 571 201 ...PETITIONERS (BY SRI. C.V. NAGESH, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. MOHAMMED TAHIR, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS BRANCH OFFICE, BENGALURU NO.3RD FLOOR, BSNL TELEPHONE EXCHANGE, HAL 2ND STAGE, INDIRANAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 008 REPRESENTED BY ITS SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI. PRASANNA KUMAR P., SPL.P.P.) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED PORTION OF THE ORDER DATED
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:17331-DB WP No. 6515 of 2025 C/W WP No. 6516 of 2025 WP No. 6522 of 2025 AND 5 OTHERS 10.02.2025 PASSED IN SPL.C.NO.123/2023 BY THE HON'BLE 49TH CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF NIA CASES AT BANGALORE (CCH-50) AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC., IN WP NO. 7017/2025 BETWEEN:
1. MUZAMMIL PASHA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, S/O SYED MUMTAZ R/AT NO.1727, 1ST STAGE, 2ND BLOCK, YASIN NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 045
2. SYED MASOOD AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, S/O SYED AZAZ R/AT 24/1, 15TH CROSS, DAVIS ROAD, SAGAIPURAM, TANNERY ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 045
3. SYED AYAZ AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, S/O LATE SYED KHALEEL R/A HOUSE NO.58, KHALEEL COMPLEX MODI ROAD, DJ HALLI, BENGALURU - 560 045
4. SUHAIL BASHA, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, S/O AMIR BASHA R/AT NO.306, 1ST CROSS, ASHWANTHNAGAR, UKBA MASJID STREET, THANISANDRA, BENGALURU - 560 045
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC:17331-DB WP No. 6515 of 2025 C/W WP No. 6516 of 2025 WP No. 6522 of 2025 AND 5 OTHERS
5. RAKIB SHARIF, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, S/O AHAMED SHARIFF R/A NO15/11, ALLAS ROAD, NEW EXTENSION PILLANA GARDEN, KG HALLI, BENGALURU - 560 045
6. MOHAMMED ZAID AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS S/O MOHAMMED HUSSAIN R/AT NO.1271, BEHIND FATHIMA MASJID, FATHIMA LAYOUT, SARAIPALYA, THANISANDRA, BENGALURU - 560 045
7. MUDASIR AHAMED AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, S/O ASHFAQ AHMED R/AT NO.772, GROUND FLOOR, 9TH MAIN, 3RD STAGE, PILLANNA GARDEN, BENGALURU - 560 045
8. SYED MUBARAK @ DICCHI MUBARAK AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, S/O SYED JAKRIYA R/AT NO.41, 2ND CROSS, MODI ROAD, DJ HALLI, BENGALURU - 560 045
9. FAROOQ AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, S/O LATE ASADULLA, R/A BESIDE BILAL MASJID, MARIYAMMA NAGAR, KG HALLI, BENGALURU - 560 045
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC:17331-DB WP No. 6515 of 2025 C/W WP No. 6516 of 2025 WP No. 6522 of 2025 AND 5 OTHERS
10. ATEEQ AHMED AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, S/O SYED NAYAZ AHMED, R/A NO 15/2, 18TH CROSS, COCONUT GARDEN HALL ROAD, SAGAIPURAM, DJ HALLI, BENGALURU 560 045
11. SHAFI KHAN AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, S/O MH ABDUL SHUKOOR, R/A NO.106, 17TH CROSS, SAGAIPURAM, FRAZOR TOWN, BENGALURU - 560 045
12. SHAHID PASHA VALI AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, S/O MOHAMMED SAB, R/A NO.30/2, 18TH CROSS, HALL ROAD EXTENSION, SAGAIPURAM, BENGALURU - 560 045
13. FAIROZ PASHA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, S/O ANWAR BASHA, NO303, MODI ROAD, NEAR MACCA MASJID, TANK MOHALLA, DJ HALLI, BENGALURU - 560 045
14. FIRDOUS KHAN AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, S/O ILYAS KHAN, R/A NEAR MEDISCOPE HOSPITAL KG HALLI, BENGALURU - 560 045
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC:17331-DB WP No. 6515 of 2025 C/W WP No. 6516 of 2025 WP No. 6522 of 2025 AND 5 OTHERS
15. TABREZ AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, S/O SHAIKH MAHABOOB R/A NO 13, 13TH CROSS, OLD BAGALUR LAYOUT, BENGALURU - 560 045
16. ABDUL BASEER S/O ABDUL BASHEER AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/AT, NO. 71, 4TH CROSS, SHADAB NAGAR, KB SANDRA, BENGALURU - 560 045 ...PETITIONERS (BY SRI. C.V. NAGESH, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. MOHAMMED TAHIR., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS BRANCH OFFICE, BENGALURU NO.3RD FLOOR, BSNL TELEPHONE EXCHANGE, HAL 2ND STAGE, INDIRANAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 008 REPRESENTED BY ITS SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI. PRASANNA KUMAR P., ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED PORTION OF THE ORDER DATED 10.02.2025 PASSED IN SPL.C.No-152/2021 BY THE HONBLE 49TH CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF NIA CASES AT BANGALORE (CCH-50) AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.,
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC:17331-DB WP No. 6515 of 2025 C/W WP No. 6516 of 2025 WP No. 6522 of 2025 AND 5 OTHERS IN WP NO. 7037/2025 BETWEEN:
1. FAIROZ PASHA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, S/O ANWAR BASHA, NO.27, 3RD CROSS, KOUSAR NAGAR, DINNUR, R.T. NAGAR, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA - 560 032
2. MUZAMMIL PASHA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, S/O LATE SYED MUMTAZ R/AT NO.1727, 1ST STAGE, 2ND BLOCK, YASEEN NAGAR, HBR LAYOUT, BEHIND USMANIA MASJID, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA - 560 045
3. SYED ABBAS, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, S/O SYED IMTIYAAZ, R/AT NO.5, MBS MANSION, 15TH CROSS, GOVINDPURA, AC POST, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA - 560 045
4. HABEEB UR RAHMAN AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, S/O ABDUL MAZEED, R/A NO.286, 14TH CROSS, GOVINDPURA, AC POST, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA - 45
5. PEER PASHA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC:17331-DB WP No. 6515 of 2025 C/W WP No. 6516 of 2025 WP No. 6522 of 2025 AND 5 OTHERS S/O LATE ABDUL MAZEED, R/A NO. 827/B, 14TH CROSS, NEAR FARIDA SHOE FACTORY, GOVINDPURA, MAIN ROAD, AC POST, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA - 45.
6. ZIYA UR RAHMAN @ ZIYA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, S/O MOHAMMED SAB, R/AT NO.14, 4TH CROSS, BYARAPPA LAYOUT, GOVINDPURA MAIN ROAD, AC POST, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA - 45.
7. FAIROZ PASHA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, S/O LATE ALLABAKSHA, R/AT NO.536, 9TH CROSS, UMAR NAGAR, GOVINDPURA, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA - 45.
8. IMRAN AHMED, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, S/O ILYAS AHEMD, R/AT NO.28, 7TH CROSS, KAVERI NAGAR, RT NAGAR POST, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA-32.
9. SAMIUDDIN S R @ SAMI, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, S/O LATE RAFEEQ S A, R/AT NO.294, 6TH MAIN, 3RD BLOCK, HBR LAYOUT, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA-43
- 23 -
NC: 2025:KHC:17331-DB WP No. 6515 of 2025 C/W WP No. 6516 of 2025 WP No. 6522 of 2025 AND 5 OTHERS
10. MOHAMMED SIRAJUDDIN, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, S/O SHAIK MOHIUDDIN, R/A NO.436, 6TH CROSS, MASJIS E KHAIR, VINOBHA NAGAR, BENGALURU NORTH, BENGALURU KARNATAKA-45.
11. RUBAH WAQAS AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, S/O KHALAQ SHARIFF, R/AT NO.26/2, 12TH A CROSS, SONNAPPA, BLOCK, PILLANNA GARDEN, 3RD STAGE, KG HALLI, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA - 45
12. SHABBAR KHAN AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, S/O NAWB KHAN, R/AT QUBA MASJID, 3RD CROSS, NEAR ANWAR LAYOUT, DJ HALLI, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA - 560 045
13. SHAIK AJMAL AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, S/O SHAIK RAIYAZ, R/A D.NO.62, 12TH CROSS, VINOBHA NAGAR, PILLANNA GARDEN, KG HALLI, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA - 45
14. MOHAMMED KALEEM AHMED, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS,
- 24 -
NC: 2025:KHC:17331-DB WP No. 6515 of 2025 C/W WP No. 6516 of 2025 WP No. 6522 of 2025 AND 5 OTHERS S/O MOHAMMED JAFFAR, R/AT NO.401, 4TH FLOOR, HONEY ENCLAVE, NEAR PETROL BUNK, SHAMPURA ROAD, GANDHINAGAR, KG HALLI, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA - 45
15. NAQEEB PASHA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, S/O MOHAMMED RAHMATHULLA H, R/AT D.NO 18, 2ND MAIN, 4TH CROSS, EZIKAL INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, KG HALLI, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA - 45.
16. IMRAN AHMED AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS S/O NAZEER AHMED R/AT 702, 1ST MAIN, 3RD CROSS, B STREET, VINOBHA NAGAR, KG HALLI, BENGALURU - 560 045
17. MOHAMMED AZHAR AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS S/O MOHAMMED SHAUKAT R/AT HOUSE NO.2, 2ND MAIN ROAD, 3RD CROSS, ANWAR LAYOUT, BENGALURU - 560 045
18. KAREEM @ SADAM AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS S/O BASHEER AHAMED R/AT NO.7, 2ND CROSS, KARUMARIYAMMA NAGAR,
- 25 -
NC: 2025:KHC:17331-DB WP No. 6515 of 2025 C/W WP No. 6516 of 2025 WP No. 6522 of 2025 AND 5 OTHERS VENKATESHPURAM, BENGALURU - 560 045 ...PETITIONERS (BY SRI. C.V. NAGESH, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. MOHAMMED TAHIR, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, BRANCH OFFICE, BENGALURU, NO.3RD FLOOR, BSNL TELEPHONE EXCHANGE, HAL 2ND STAGE, INDIRANAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 008 REPRESENTED BY ITS SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI. PRASANNA KUMAR P., SPL.P.P.) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED PORTION OF THE ORDER DATED 10.02.2025 PASSED IN SPL.C.No.141/2021 BY THE HONBLE 49TH CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF NIA CASES AT BANGALORE (CCH-50) AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.IN WP NO. 8508/2025
BETWEEN:
1. NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENGY BANGALORE, REPRESENTED BY ITS INSPECTOR OF POLICE, BRANCH OFFICE, INDIRANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 008 ...PETITIONER
- 26 -
NC: 2025:KHC:17331-DB WP No. 6515 of 2025 C/W WP No. 6516 of 2025 WP No. 6522 of 2025 AND 5 OTHERS (BY SRI. SACHIN C., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. PRASANNA KUMAR P., SPL.P.P.) AND:
1. M SADIQ BASHA S/O T A MASTHAN AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT NO.40, 2ND MAIN ROAD, SONNANNAHALLI VIVEK NAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 047 ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SADDAM R. MULLA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. MOHAMMED TAHIR, ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 10.02.2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED XLIX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (SPECIAL COURT FOR THE TRIAL OF NIA CASES) (CCH-50) AT BENGALURU IN SPL.C.NO.320/2020 THEREBY PARTLY ALLOWING THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED NO.21 (PRODUCED VIDE ANNEXURE-A) AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE PETITION.IN WP NO. 11206/2025
BETWEEN:
1. MR. M. SADIQ BASHA S/O. T.A. MASTHAN AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT NO. 40, 2ND MAIN ROAD, SONNANNAHALLI, VIVEK NAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 047 ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. MOHAMMED TAHIR, ADVOCATE)
- 27 -
NC: 2025:KHC:17331-DB WP No. 6515 of 2025 C/W WP No. 6516 of 2025 WP No. 6522 of 2025 AND 5 OTHERS AND:
1. NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS BRANCH OFFICE, BENGALURU 3RD FLOOR, BSNL TELEPHONE EXCHANGE, HAL 2ND STAGE, INDIRANAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 008 REPRESENTED BY ITS SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI. P. PRASANNA KUMAR, SPL.P.P.) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OR CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED PORTION OF THE ORDER DATED 10.02.2025 PASSED IN SPL.C.NO.320/2020 BY HONBLE 49TH CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF NIA CASES AT BANGALORE (CCH-50) AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC., DATE ON WHICH WP NOS.6515/2025, 6516/2025 6522/2025, 7037/2025, 04.04.2025 6551/2025 AND 7017/2025 WERE RESERVED FOR ORDERS DATE ON WHICH WP NO.8508/2025 WAS RESERVED 07.04.2025 FOR ORDERS DATE ON WHICH WP NO.11206/2025 WAS 16.04.2025 RESERVED FOR ORDERS DATE ON WHICH THE ORDER 26.04.2025 WAS PRONOUNCED
- 28 -
NC: 2025:KHC:17331-DB WP No. 6515 of 2025 C/W WP No. 6516 of 2025 WP No. 6522 of 2025 AND 5 OTHERS THESE PETITIIONS, HAVING BEEN HEARD & RESERVED, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR and HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA CAV ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR) All these writ petitions arise from orders dated 10.02.2025 passed by the Special Court for trial of NIA cases, Bengaluru, in Spl. C. Nos. 320/2020, 141/2021, 152/2021 and 123/2023 that are being prosecuted by the NIA for the offences punishable under Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (for short 'UAPA') besides offences under IPC in relation to different incidents of crime, the details of which are not necessary to be narrated here.
2. Accused No.21 in Spl.C.No.320/2020, Accused Nos.1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 15 to 19 and, 22 to 24 in Spl.C.No.152/2021, Accused Nos.1 to 13, 19 and 21 to 24 in Spl.C.No.141/2021, and Accused Nos.1 to 4, 8 to 12 and, 14 to 20 in Spl.C.No.123/2023 filed applications to examine the order of sanction in respective cases. For
- 29 -
NC: 2025:KHC:17331-DB WP No. 6515 of 2025 C/W WP No. 6516 of 2025 WP No. 6522 of 2025 AND 5 OTHERS clarity the relief sought in the application filed in one of the cases is extracted below.
"In Spl.C.C.No.320/2020:
Wherefore, in view of latest legal position as explained in Fuleshwar Gope V. Union of India, 2024 SCC Online SC 2610, under signed counsel humbly prays to summon the records of impugned sanction dated 10.07.2020 and examine the sanction and recommendation authority by providing opportunity to accused counsel to test the veracity of impugned sanction, in the interest of justice and equity."
3. Except the date of sanction order, same is the prayer sought in the applications filed in other cases.
4. The Special Court passed the order on 10.02.2025 in all the cases partly allowing the application in following terms :
"The application filed by accused No.21 is hereby partly allowed.
- 30 -
NC: 2025:KHC:17331-DB WP No. 6515 of 2025 C/W WP No. 6516 of 2025 WP No. 6522 of 2025 AND 5 OTHERS The Under Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, CTCR Division, New Delhi, is hereby directed to produce the complete case file related to the sanction issued on 10th July 2020, under Order No.11011/11/2020/NIA, for the perusal of this Court. The file will be returned after the Court is satisfied that all relevant materials were duly placed before the Government at the time of granting the sanction.
Intimate the same to the concerned".
4.1. The Special Court has recorded the following reasons:
Though the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in para 18 of its judgment in Fuleshwar Gope vs Union of India and Others1, that the party challenging the validity of the sanction must lead evidence, it is not stated that the evidence must be led at the pre-trial stage i.e., before framing charges. In para 41 of the said judgment, it has been clearly held by the Supreme Court that an order 1 [2024 SCC Online SC 2610],
- 31 -
NC: 2025:KHC:17331-DB WP No. 6515 of 2025 C/W WP No. 6516 of 2025 WP No. 6522 of 2025 AND 5 OTHERS passed by an administrative authority is not to be tested by judicial review in the manner as a judicial or quasi-
judicial order is tested; that while it is imperative for the latter to record reasons for its decision, for the former, it is sufficient to show that the authority applied its mind to the relevant facts and materials. If the sanction is granted by a competent authority, and the order of granting sanction reflects application of mind to all the materials the sanction will be deemed valid. If the order does not indicate this, the prosecution is entitled to adduce evidence from the person who granted sanction and this will suffice.
4.2. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that independent review and application of mind are issues to be determined by evidence which should be raised during trial stage. In the present case the accused have challenged the validity of the sanction on the grounds that it was issued mechanically without application of mind.
While this challenge can be made during trial, it is not
- 32 -
NC: 2025:KHC:17331-DB WP No. 6515 of 2025 C/W WP No. 6516 of 2025 WP No. 6522 of 2025 AND 5 OTHERS appropriate to raise it at the pre-trial stage to prove the non-application of mind while issuing sanction. For these reasons there is no merit in the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the accused.
4.3. The further findings of the Special Court are that Section 16 of the National Investigation Agency Act specifies that the Special Court has to follow the procedure prescribed for trial of Sessions Cases, and therefore it has to follow the procedure prescribed in Chapter XVIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.).
4.4. This Chapter since does not provide for leading evidence at a stage before the charges are framed, accused cannot lead evidence before the charges are framed. It is also held by the Special Court that the judgment in Fuleshwar Gope does not explicitly hold that the accused can lead evidence before framing charges and therefore the contention of the accused is liable to be rejected.
- 33 -
NC: 2025:KHC:17331-DB WP No. 6515 of 2025 C/W WP No. 6516 of 2025 WP No. 6522 of 2025 AND 5 OTHERS
5. Sri. C.V. Nagesh, learned senior counsel arguing on behalf of Sri.Mohammed Tahir, learned counsel for the accused argued that the Special Court has erroneously held that the accused cannot agitate the issue of invalidity of sanction before framing of charges. He referred to the sanction order to emphasis that it very well discloses that the sanctioning authority was not provided with all the materials collected by the investigating agency, what was provided to him was only a list of witnesses and documents. This indicates that the sanctioning authority had no occasion to peruse the statements of witnesses and the documents, and therefore sanction order is invalid. He argued further that the Supreme Court has made it very clear in Fuleshwar Gope that the issue in regard to validity of sanction must be raised at the earliest stage, otherwise it cannot be questioned. And though the Special Court has to follow the procedure prescribed for the Sessions trial, which does not provide for recording of evidence before framing charges, in view of clear verdict
- 34 -
NC: 2025:KHC:17331-DB WP No. 6515 of 2025 C/W WP No. 6516 of 2025 WP No. 6522 of 2025 AND 5 OTHERS of the Supreme Court, the issue as to invalidity of sanction is to be raised at the earliest stage. The accused are entitled to raise that question again though it is a fact that their application for discharge was dismissed earlier. He argued further that the prosecution does not examine the sanctioning authority soon after recording of evidence would commence; the general practice is to summon the authority at the end; the accused will have to wait till the authority is summoned to court or he is called upon to adduce defence evidence in accordance with Section 233 of Cr.P.C. If according to the accused there is no valid sanction, and owing to this reason there is no scope for framing charges against them, the issue as to validity or invalidity of sanction must be decided at the earliest stage as has been held in Fuleshwar Gope. Therefore the impugned order is to be set aside and the applications filed by the accused are to be allowed.
6. Sri. P. Prasanna Kumar, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the NIA met the argument of Sri. C.V.
- 35 -
NC: 2025:KHC:17331-DB WP No. 6515 of 2025 C/W WP No. 6516 of 2025 WP No. 6522 of 2025 AND 5 OTHERS Nagesh by arguing in this way: It is no doubt true that the accused has a right to raise the issue with regard to invalidity of sanction order. But in the cases on hand it is not in dispute that sanction order has been granted by competent authority. If according to the accused, the sanctioning authority has not applied his mind or that the NIA did not place entire evidence before the sanctioning authority, the appropriate stage to decide that question is after examining the sanctioning authority in the court. If the NIA launches prosecution without obtaining sanction, or if the sanction is obtained from incompetent authority, the accused can raise that issue even before trial commences, but this right is not available if the sanction has been issued by competent authority. If there is infirmity in the sanction order issued by competent authority, the right time to raise that issue is during trial.
The earliest stage as has been held by the Supreme Court in para 41 of the judgment in Fuleshwar Gope, means after recording evidence. He referred to section 465 of
- 36 -
NC: 2025:KHC:17331-DB WP No. 6515 of 2025 C/W WP No. 6516 of 2025 WP No. 6522 of 2025 AND 5 OTHERS Cr.P.C. to fortify his argument that if sanction order is not assailed during trial, it cannot be raised in an appeal or revision. Therefore "the earliest stage" does not mean before commencement of trial. Sri.Prasanna Kumar argued.
6.1. Then with regard to the writ petitions filed by the NIA, he argued that the Special Court could not have directed the Under Secretary of Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, CTCR Division to produce the case file relating to order of granting sanction. Having negatived all the points contended on behalf of the accused, the Special Court should not have issued a direction to the Under Secretary. As the authority who has issued the sanction order is going to be examined, the court can take a decision based on his evidence. There is no need to produce the complete case file. With these submissions Sri. P.Prasanna Kumar argued for dismissing the writ petitions filed by the accused, and allowing the writ petitions filed by the NIA.
- 37 -
NC: 2025:KHC:17331-DB WP No. 6515 of 2025 C/W WP No. 6516 of 2025 WP No. 6522 of 2025 AND 5 OTHERS
7. Sri. C.V.Nagesh replied that if the Special Court wants the files relating to sanction, it is only for the purpose of ascertaining the validity of sanction order.
There is no infirmity to that extent in the order of the Special Court.
8. From the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, the question to be answered is, what is the meaning of "the earliest possible opportunity"?
9. The question formulated for discussion can be better answered if a cursory glance is given to procedure prescribed under the Cr.P.C. or Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita for trial of different types of trials, it is found that neither in the Chapter relating to trial of summons cases nor in the Chapter dealing with summary trials, there is a stage for framing charge. That means there is no need to frame charge or charges in accordance with procedure prescribed in the Chapter relating to charges. Only summary of accusation shall be stated to the accused. In warrant trial cases, charges have to be
- 38 -
NC: 2025:KHC:17331-DB WP No. 6515 of 2025 C/W WP No. 6516 of 2025 WP No. 6522 of 2025 AND 5 OTHERS framed if the case is instituted on a police report i.e., the charge sheet. But if a warrant case is initiated otherwise than a police report, the prosecution has to lead evidence for the purpose of examining whether there are materials to frame charges or not. The Magistrate shall discharge the accused if evidence does not disclose a case for framing charge. Charges can be framed only if the evidence discloses a ground for framing charge. In sessions trial, charge can be framed, but there is no need to record evidence before framing charge. Section 16 of the NIA Act prescribes the procedure to be followed for trial of cases. Depending upon the nature of offence, summary trial or sessions trial can be held, but in both types of trials there is no stage of recording of evidence before framing charge.
10. Wherever statue prescribes sanction to be obtained from a competent authority for taking cognizance of an offence by the court, accused gets a right to challenge the validity of sanction. It is to be noted here
- 39 -
NC: 2025:KHC:17331-DB WP No. 6515 of 2025 C/W WP No. 6516 of 2025 WP No. 6522 of 2025 AND 5 OTHERS that the accused filed applications seeking their discharge, and their applications were rejected. That order became final. It is only after judgment of the Supreme Court in Fuleshwar Gope, the accused challenged the validity of sanction.
11. The following are the three categories of cases in which there is scope for raising the issue in regard to sanction :-
(i) If the court takes the cognizance of an offence without sanction order, the accused can plead for his discharge on the ground that taking cognizance in the absence of sanction is not permitted.
(ii) If the sanction order is issued by an incompetent authority, accused gets a right to seek discharge.
(iii) If the sanction order is issued by competent authority, but the accused wants to
- 40 -
NC: 2025:KHC:17331-DB WP No. 6515 of 2025 C/W WP No. 6516 of 2025 WP No. 6522 of 2025 AND 5 OTHERS question the sanction order on the ground that there is no application of mind by the authority or that all the materials were not placed before him, the appropriate stage is trial.
12. In Fuleshwar Gope, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as below :
"17. The afore-cited authorities point to only one conclusion which is that sanction, though should be challenged at the earliest possible opportunity, it can be challenged at a later stage as well. These judgments, although not specifically in the context of laws such as UAPA, posit a generally acceptable rule that a right available to the accused, which may provide an opportunity to establish innocence, should not be foreclosed by operation of law, unless specifically provided within the statutory text. At the same time, challenging validity of sanction cannot and should not be a weapon to slow down or stall otherwise valid prosecution. Other legislations such as the Cr.P.C. provide mechanisms for the sanction and subsequent actions to be saved from being invalidated due
- 41 -
NC: 2025:KHC:17331-DB WP No. 6515 of 2025 C/W WP No. 6516 of 2025 WP No. 6522 of 2025 AND 5 OTHERS to any irregularity etc. Section 465 Cr.P.C. provides for the possibility that a sanction granted under Section 197 Cr.P.C can be saved by its operation. Similarly, a sanction under the PC Act, if found that there was any error, omission or irregularity would not be vitiated unless the same has resulted in failure of justice.
18. The UAPA does not provide for any such saving of the sanction. This implies that, in the wisdom of the legislature, the inbuilt mechanism of the Act of having two authorities apply their mind to the grant of a sanction, is sufficient. This emphasizes the role and sanctity of the operation to be carried out by both these authorities. In order to challenge the grant of sanction as invalid, the grounds that can be urged are that (1) all the relevant material was not placed before the authority; (2) the authority has not applied its mind to the said material; and (3) insufficiency of material. This list is only illustrative and not exhaustive. The common thread that runs through the three grounds of challenge above is that the party putting forward this challenge has to lead
- 42 -
NC: 2025:KHC:17331-DB WP No. 6515 of 2025 C/W WP No. 6516 of 2025 WP No. 6522 of 2025 AND 5 OTHERS evidence to such effect. That, needless to say, can only be done before the Trial Court. In that view of the matter, we have no hesitation in holding that while we recognise the treasured right of an accused to avail all remedies available to him under law, in ordinary circumstances challenge to sanction under UAPA should be raised at the earliest possible opportunity so as to enable the Trial Court to determine the question, for its competence to proceed further and the basis on which any other proceeding on the appellate side would depend on the answer to this question. [See: S. Subbegowda (supra)] In the attending facts and circumstances of the present case, keeping in view the submission made at the bar that the trial is underway and numerous witnesses (113 out of
125) already stand examined, we refrain from returning any finding on the challenge to the validity of the sanction qua the present appellant and leave it to be raised before the Trial Judge, who shall, if such a question is raised decide, it promptly".
- 43 -
NC: 2025:KHC:17331-DB WP No. 6515 of 2025 C/W WP No. 6516 of 2025 WP No. 6522 of 2025 AND 5 OTHERS
13. Here, it is not the case of the accused that the Special Court took cognizance of the offences in the absence of sanction; it is also not the case that sanction order has been passed by incompetent authority, in which event they would have got right to seek discharge even before framing of charge. Their case falls under third category. The initial burden is on the prosecution to prove that valid sanction has been taken, and to prove this aspect the competent authority is to be examined in the court. The accused gets a right to cross examine the competent authority. Usefully certain observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 41 of Fuleshwar Gope may be referred here.
"41........In Mahesh G. Jain (supra) it has been held that the prosecution is to prove that a valid sanction has been granted. This needless to state, can only be done by adducing evidence at trial, where the defence in challenge thereto, will necessarily have to be given an opportunity to question the same and put forward its case that the two essential
- 44 -
NC: 2025:KHC:17331-DB WP No. 6515 of 2025 C/W WP No. 6516 of 2025 WP No. 6522 of 2025 AND 5 OTHERS requirements detailed above, have not been met. Furthermore, in Mohd. Iqbal M. Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra, a case under the TADA, this Court was faced with a similar situation, the sanction wherein was granted by the competent authority, i.e., the Commissioner of Police, Greater Bombay on the same day that he received the papers in that regard. The contention of non-application of mind was not accepted by the Court observing that so long as the sanction was by a competent authority and after applying its mind to all materials and the same being reflected in the order, the sanction would hold to be valid. It was further held that when an order does not so indicate, the prosecution is entitled to adduce evidence aliunde of the person who granted the sanction and that would be sufficient compliance. The Court would then, look into such evidence to arrive at a conclusion as to whether application of mind was present or absent. In conclusion, we hold that independent review as well as application of mind are questions to be determined by way of evidence and as such should be raised at the stage of trial, so as to
- 45 -
NC: 2025:KHC:17331-DB WP No. 6515 of 2025 C/W WP No. 6516 of 2025 WP No. 6522 of 2025 AND 5 OTHERS ensure that there is no undue delay in the proceedings reaching their logical and lawful conclusion on these grounds. As a result of the conclusion drawn by this Court on the first issue, it is also to be said that if the sanction is taken exception to, on the above grounds, it has to be raised at the earliest instance and not belatedly, however, law does not preclude the same from being challenged at a later stage......."
14. In view of the above, the earliest possible opportunity with reference to third category of cases, means 'during trial', and not before framing charge.
15. Explanation can be given with the aid of Section 465 of Cr.P.C. or 511 of BNSS also. Section 465 of Cr.P.C.
or section 511 of BNSS, states that a court of appeal or revision cannot reverse a finding, sentence or order passed by a competent court if there is any error or irregularity in sanction unless failure of justice has occasioned. That means if any finding on validity of sanction is to be taken as one of the grounds in an appeal
- 46 -
NC: 2025:KHC:17331-DB WP No. 6515 of 2025 C/W WP No. 6516 of 2025 WP No. 6522 of 2025 AND 5 OTHERS or revision, such an issue should have been urged during trial, otherwise not; it is permitted only when gross prejudice is demonstrated.
16. Sri. C.V.Nagesh has placed reliance on two more decisions in the cases of Nanjappa Vs. State of Karnataka2 and B.S.Yeddyurappa Vs. The Principal Secretary to His Excellency the Governor of Karnataka and Others3. But in these two decisions also, the explanation to the phrasal expression 'earlier stage of proceeding' may be seen. In Nanjappa, it is held that, "23.5. The rationale underlying the provision obviously is that if the trial has proceeded to conclusion and resulted in a finding or sentence, the same should not be lightly interfered with by the appellate or the revisional court simply because there was some omission, error or irregularity in the order sanctioning prosecution under Section 19(1). Failure of justice is, what the appellate or revisional Court would in such cases look for.
2[(2015) 14 SCC 186] 3 [ILR 2015 KAR 5567]
- 47 -
NC: 2025:KHC:17331-DB WP No. 6515 of 2025 C/W WP No. 6516 of 2025 WP No. 6522 of 2025 AND 5 OTHERS And while examining whether any such failure had indeed taken place, the Court concerned would also keep in mind whether the objection touching the error, omission or irregularity in the sanction could or should have been raised at an earlier stage of the proceedings meaning thereby whether the same could and should have been raised at the trial stage instead of being urged in appeal or revision".
17. In the case of Yeddyurappa, the contention that question of sanction could be agitated only during trial was not accepted and it was held that sanction could be challenged at any stage. But this observation was made in context of a situation that the Governor, who was the sanctioning authority assumed the role of investigator also. Investigation had not been entrusted to an independent authority. The judgment of the Division Bench of this High Court is not helpful to the accused.
- 48 -
NC: 2025:KHC:17331-DB WP No. 6515 of 2025 C/W WP No. 6516 of 2025 WP No. 6522 of 2025 AND 5 OTHERS
18. Therefore the conclusion is if sanction order is issued by a competent authority and it has to be challenged on any ground such as non application of mind, not placing all the materials before the sanctioning authority etc., the proper stage is trial.
19. Another point raised by Sri C.V.Nagesh is to be answered now. His argument is that the accused has to wait till the sanctioning authority is summoned, which is usually after other material witnesses are examined. To this answer is that, the practice has been to summon the sanctioning authority after other material witnesses, other than investigating officer, are examined. There is no mandate that the witnesses are to be examined in a particular order, but the investigators will be examined at the end. This procedure is adopted to duly prove contradictions if any, through the investigating officer as contemplated under Section 162 of Cr.P.C. So far as sanctioning authority is concerned, he can be examined in the beginning itself. If the accused is so sure that
- 49 -
NC: 2025:KHC:17331-DB WP No. 6515 of 2025 C/W WP No. 6516 of 2025 WP No. 6522 of 2025 AND 5 OTHERS sanction order is invalid and for this reason there is no need to examine all the witnesses, he can request the court to examine the sanctioning authority in the beginning itself. After the charges are framed, the court can summon the sanctioning authority and examine the validity of sanction order. If the sanction is found to be invalid, there is no need to hold further trial, and the accused can be discharged even at that stage. This observation is of course made with a rider that the prosecution can obtain fresh sanction in that eventuality.
20. As has been argued by Sri. C.V.Nagesh, if the sanctioning authority was provided only with a list of witness and documents and thereby he had no occasion to apply mind to the evidence collected during investigation, that aspect can certainly be raised when sanctioning authority is examined as a witness, the right of the accused has not been forfeited.
21. In regard to the writ petitions filed by the NIA, it has to be stated that the impugned order does not disclose
- 50 -
NC: 2025:KHC:17331-DB WP No. 6515 of 2025 C/W WP No. 6516 of 2025 WP No. 6522 of 2025 AND 5 OTHERS the reasons for giving a direction to Under Secretary to produce the case file. The Special Court, having negatived all the grounds urged by the accused in their applications, should have dismissed the applications in entirety. No decision as to validity of the order or its veracity, as stated in the applications, can be taken unless the sanctioning authority is examined. If necessary, the Special Court may take a decision to summon the case file at a later stage while issuing summons to the sanctioning authority.
22. Consequent to above discussion, W.P.Nos., 6551/2025, 7017/2025, 7037/2025 and 11206/2025 filed by the accused are dismissed.
Writ Petition Nos. 6515/2025, 6516/2025, 6522/2025 and 8508/2025 filed by the NIA are allowed, direction given by the Special Court to the Under Secretary to produce the complete file relating to sanction orders in all the cases, is set aside. The applications filed by the accused before the Special Court are dismissed in entirety. Liberty is granted to summon the case file, if it is
- 51 -
NC: 2025:KHC:17331-DB WP No. 6515 of 2025 C/W WP No. 6516 of 2025 WP No. 6522 of 2025 AND 5 OTHERS necessary for examination, at the time of issuing witness summons to sanctioning authority.
Sd/-
(SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR) JUDGE Sd/-
(K.S. HEMALEKHA) JUDGE CKL/SD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1