Union of India Rep. by The Inspector of Police National Investigation Agency Chennai Branch vs Barakathullah etc.

Held: It is quite well settled position of law that the chargesheet need not contain detailed analysis of the evidence – It is for the concerned court considering the application for bail to assess the material/evidence presented by the investigating authority along with the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. in its entirety, to form its opinion as to whether there are reasonable grounds for believing the accusation against the accused is prima facie true or not – The investigation disclosed that the activities and undeclared objectives of PFI had strong communal and anti-national agenda to establish an Islamic rule in India by radicalization of Muslims and communalization of issues – After recruitment as members of PFI, they were motivated towards violent terrorist activities by providing training through beginners course and advanced training courses – During the training courses, physical education classes were conducted in which members were taught to attack, assault, maim and murder with bare hands – The training was also given as to how to use weapons like knives and swords and how to hurl bombs – There is no need to elaborate on the allegations made by the protected/listed witnesses stating the role and involvement of each of the respondents, who were either members or the office bearers of the PFI – Suffice it to say that, there is sufficient material in the form of statements of witnesses and other incriminating evidence in the form of digital devices, books, photographs etc. collected during the course of investigation and relied upon by the appellant as recorded in the chargesheet, to form an opinion that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusations against the respondents-accused are prima facie true – The Court at the stage of considering the bail applications of the respondentsaccused is merely required to record a finding on the basis of broad probabilities regarding the involvement of the respondents in the commission of the alleged offences – The High Court has committed gross error in not considering the material/evidence in its right and proper perspective – The alleged offences are under Section 18, 18A, 18B etc. – For the purpose of considering the offence under Section 18, the commission of terrorist act as contemplated in Section 15 of UAPA is not required to be made out – In the instant case, this Court is satisfied from the chargesheet as also the other material/documents relied upon by the appellant that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusations against the respondents are prima facie true and that the mandate contained in the proviso to Section 43(D)(5) would be applicable for not releasing the respondents on bail – Thus, the impugned order passed by the High Court is set aside and respondents directed to surrender themselves before the appellant-NIA. [Paras 13, 16, 17, 18, 22]