‘A person is not greater than a nation’: Karnataka High Court denies bail to alleged ISIS operative

The Karnataka High Court has denied bail to Arafath Ali, an accused in the ongoing ISIS-related investigation. The court upheld the decision of the Special National Investigation Agency (NIA) Court, ruling that national interest must prevail over individual freedom when issues of 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 materials produced against the accused showed prima facie evidence of conspiracy against the nation, justifying denial of bail under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). . ).

The case has its roots in an incident that took place on August 15, 2022, when a young boy named Prem Singh was stabbed in Shivamogga city. During the investigation, authorities uncovered the involvement of a network allegedly conspiring to carry out terrorist activities in India. The main character, Shariq, was detained along with his associates Maaz and Yaseen. The interrogation revealed plans to disrupt national unity and security.

As the investigation progressed, links were discovered with Arafath Ali, who was abroad at the time. After his arrest in September 2023, the NIA had filed charges against Ali under various sections of the UAPA, IPC and the Explosive Substances Act. Arafath Ali’s lawyer, Advocate S.Balakrishnan, challenged the denial of bail, maintaining that Ali was not named in the original charge sheet and was arrested much later without substantial evidence of his involvement. It was also argued that no recovery or testimony indicated Ali’s involvement and mere association with other accused did not establish his involvement in the conspiracy.

On the other hand, special public prosecutor C. Sachin, representing the NIA, argued that the evidence clearly pointed to Ali’s involvement in the form of call records and financial transactions linking him with the other accused. Additionally, protected witness statements detail Ali’s active efforts to radicalize youths and promote the establishment of a caliphate in India. The prosecution stressed that considering the gravity of the charges made under the UAPA, the denial of bail was justified by the serious nature of the charges.

Focusing on the balance between individual freedom under Art. 21 of the Constitution and the broader national interest, the Tribunal noted: “It would not be inappropriate to state that Art. 21 concerns individual freedom. Article 21 states that a person’s personal liberty shall not be abridged without due process of law. Its meaning has been expanded and there is undoubtedly a greater degree of holiness associated with it. But whenever the national interest is at stake or the unity, sovereignty and integrity of the nation is challenged, individual freedom takes a backseat. Individual or personal interest must give way to the national interest. An individual is not greater than the nation in which he was born. The accused may exercise his liberty under Art. 21 if arrested without due process of law. If it is found that the criminal proceedings were conducted in accordance with the due process laid down by law, the decision on an application for bail must be decided by the application of the bail law and not by the application of Art. 21.”

The court further examined the testimony of protected witnesses, with one key witness linking the appellant to the statement that he had actively participated in the radicalization of local youth in order to support the establishment of an Islamic caliphate in India in line with the ideology of ISIS. Other witnesses also confirmed this involvement, detailing the defendant’s role in terrorist plots, recruitment efforts, and suspicious financial transactions linked to the broader terrorist network. The court noted that the witness statements “give a vivid picture of the applicant’s involvement in various ways.”

The court did not accept as valid the arguments of the appellant’s lawyer, which focused on the failure to admit guilt or recover incriminating materials from the accused. The Court stated that “It is not always necessary to obtain a confession from the accused in order to implicate him. It is also not necessary to recover funds from the accused under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. These are not sine qua non conditions.”

Citing the Supreme Court’s judgment in the case of Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali, the court stressed that in considering bail under the UAPA, the main concern is whether the allegations are “prima facie true” and not the detailed assessment of evidence that might be required to full trial period. The court explained that at this stage the materials presented by the prosecutor’s office are sufficient to establish the accused’s involvement, unless other evidence contradicts it.

Ultimately, the court held that the Special NIA Court did not err in denying bail to the accused and, therefore, the appeal was without merit and was dismissed.