The Supreme Court has upheld the Madras High Court’s decision to grant bail to Mohammad Abbas, a lawyer based in Madurai. Abbas was arrested by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) for his purported ties with the banned Popular Front of India (PFI) organization.
A bench comprising Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Pankaj Mithal, while confirming Abbas’ bail, stated that he must
“scrupulously comply with bail conditions,”
warning that any failure to do so might lead to the revocation of his bail. The apex court further clarified that
“the observations in the bail order will have no bearing on the trial.”
The Madras High Court had granted bail to Abbas on August 2, 2023. However, he faced another arrest the very next day based on two additional FIRs. The High Court’s bench, consisting of Justice M Sundar and Justice R Sakthivel, had approved Abbas‘ appeal against the Special Court’s decision, which had previously denied him bail. The High Court, however, dismissed another quash petition filed by Abbas, stating that
“arguments regarding malicious initiation of proceedings could be raised during the trial.”
The High Court also declined an oral request by the Special Public Prosecutor for an appeal certificate to the Supreme Court under Article 134-A of the Constitution. The court remarked,
“We find that Section 43D of UAPA has been elucidated and interpreted by Hon’ble Supreme Court in a long line of judgments i.e., a catena of case laws and we have respectfully referred to many of these case laws in our aforesaid common order.”
Abbas was among five individuals arrested by the NIA in May 2023 concerning the PFI. The NIA asserted that the arrests were made after extensive searches revealed incriminating materials, including weapons, digital devices, and documents.
It was contended in the court that Abbas was being victimized because he
“used to regularly appear for PFI in courts.”
The NIA countered this, stating they had substantial evidence against Abbas, including an audio clip, based on which he was arrested. They argued that
“the only ground on which quashing of proceeding was being sought was on the ground of malice, which was the last resort of a losing litigant and was generally not accepted as a good ground for quashing.”
The Madras High Court, after examining the evidence against Abbas, including the audio clip, noted,
“We find that the case on hand does not pass muster qua reasonable grounds for believing that accusation against the petitioner is prima facie true, to put it differently, the case diary before us (specifically the portions including audio clips to which our attention was drawn) does not cut ice qua proviso to section 43D(5) of UAPA.”
The court also highlighted that the PFI was banned post the filing of the FIR and was not designated as a ‘terrorist organization’ but only as an ‘unlawful association’. The court observed,
“Except broad averments in the nature of suspicion of involvement of what is described as other members of ‘banned terrorist organisation of PFI’ in further investigation application there is no accusation with specificity qua petitioner.”
The High Court granted bail to Abbas under specific conditions, including executing a bond with two sureties of One lakh rupees, not leaving Chennai without prior permission, signing daily before the trial court, using only one mobile phone, and surrendering his passport.
This decision by the Supreme Court underscores the Madras High Court’s perspective on the matter, emphasizing the nuances of the UAPA and the legal proceedings related to the PFI case.
