The Karnataka High Court has denied bail to Arafath Ali, an accused in an ongoing investigation related to ISIS activities. The court upheld the decision of the Special National Investigation Agency (NIA) Court, emphasizing that national security takes precedence over individual liberty when the unity, sovereignty, and integrity of the nation are at stake.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Sreenivas Harish Kumar and Justice JM Khazi delivered the verdict, stating that the evidence presented against Ali demonstrated prima facie involvement in a conspiracy against the nation. This warranted the denial of bail under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).
The case originates from an incident on August 15, 2022, when a youth named Prem Singh was stabbed in Shivamogga City. Investigations revealed a network allegedly plotting terrorist activities in India. Key figures Shariq, Maaz, and Yaseen were apprehended, and their interrogation uncovered plans to disrupt national security.
Further investigation revealed links to Arafath Ali, who was abroad at the time. Following his arrest in September 2023, the NIA charged Ali under various sections of the UAPA, IPC, and Explosive Substances Act. Ali's counsel, Advocate S. Balakrishnan, challenged the bail rejection, arguing that Ali was not named in the initial chargesheet and was arrested much later without substantial evidence. The defence claimed that no recovery of incriminating materials or confessional statements implicated Ali and that mere association with the other accused did not establish his participation in the conspiracy.
However, Special Public Prosecutor C Sachin, representing the NIA, argued that evidence, including communication records and financial transactions, clearly linked Ali to the other accused. Statements from protected witnesses detailed Ali's active role in radicalizing young individuals and promoting the establishment of a caliphate in India. The prosecution emphasized the gravity of the accusations under UAPA and justified the denial of bail due to the serious nature of the charges.
The court addressed the balance between individual liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution and national interest, stating, "Whenever national interest is involved or a challenge is posed to unity, sovereignty and integrity of the nation, individual liberty recedes to background. Individual is not greater than the Nation where he has taken birth."
Examining statements from protected witnesses, the court highlighted one witness who implicated Ali in radicalizing local youth to support the establishment of an Islamic Caliphate in India, aligning with ISIS ideology. Other witnesses corroborated Ali’s involvement in terrorist conspiracies, recruitment efforts, and suspicious financial transactions linked to the terrorist network.
Rejecting the defence's argument regarding the lack of a confession or recovery of incriminating material, the court held that these are not absolute requirements for establishing guilt. Citing the Supreme Court's ruling in the case of Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali, the court emphasized that the primary concern when considering bail under UAPA is whether the accusations are "prima facie true.”
Ultimately, the court concluded that the NIA Special Court had not erred in refusing bail to Arafath Ali, and the appeal was dismissed.
