Even an Accused in Terror Cases Has a Right to Walk His Daughter Down the Aisle: Karnataka High Court Extends Interim Bail for Travel Time

“The purpose of interim bail is to attend rituals as the father of the bride — travel time from Chennai to Bengaluru must be reasonably accommodated,” In a noteworthy decision blending judicial discretion with humanitarian concern, the Karnataka High Court extended the duration of interim bail granted to Mehboob Pasha @ Abdullah, an accused in serious terrorism-related offences under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) and Indian Penal Code, to enable him to attend his daughter’s marriage with adequate travel time. The appellant, who has been incarcerated for years in two separate cases involving alleged ISIS-linked terror activities, had been earlier granted limited hours of bail on the marriage dates alone.

Allowing his criminal appeal under Section 21(4) of the NIA Act, a Division Bench comprising Justice K.S. Mudagal and Justice P. Sree Sudha modified the trial court’s order to permit interim bail from 10:00 AM on 25 July to 10:00 AM on 28 July 2025, covering travel and ceremony days.

“Interim Bail Cannot Be Rendered Illusory by Denial of Travel Time” – High Court Rebukes Trial Court's Restrictive Grant

The trial court, while acknowledging the humanitarian purpose of the request, had confined interim bail only to the hours of the Nikah ceremony on 26 July 2025 and the wedding reception on 27 July 2025, despite the fact that the appellant was lodged in Central Prison-II, Puzhal, Chennai and needed to travel to Bengaluru.

Correcting this, the High Court observed:

“The trial Court though noticed that appellant is lodged in Central Prison-II, Puzhal, Chennai, has not granted bail for the required journey time. Therefore, the order requires to be modified only to that extent.” [Para 10]

Accordingly, the Court extended the interim bail to a 72-hour period, enabling meaningful participation in his daughter’s marriage ceremonies.

Appellant Facing Trial for Grave UAPA Charges, Alleged ISIS Links – No Regular Bail Considered

The appellant is the first accused in Spl.C.No.320/2020, pending before the Special NIA Court, Bengaluru, and also implicated as Accused No.4 in Spl.SC No.24/2022, pending in Chennai, in connection with the murder of a police inspector during the alleged execution of terrorist activities.

The allegations, as summarised in the judgment, claim that the appellant and his co-accused:

“...motivated by fanatic religious ideologies, formed a terrorist gang by the name Al Hind, joining hands with ISIS, and hatched conspiracy to break the sovereignty of India and establish Islamic Caliphate.” [Para 3]

It was further alleged that the group mobilised funds, fetched arms and ammunition, and trained Muslim youth for targeted terrorist operations, including attacks on Hindu leaders and law enforcement officers in Karnataka and Tamil Nadu.

Due to the seriousness of the charges, the Court clarified:

“Having regard to the nature of the offence and material available against him, he was not granted bail for all these years.” [Para 9]

No Binding Effect of Bail in Parallel Case — Each Case Must Stand on Its Own Facts

The appellant argued that since he had already been granted 15 days’ interim bail by the Special NIA Court in Chennai, the Bengaluru Court should not have imposed stricter limits. The High Court, however, firmly held:

“The order of the Spl. Judge, Chennai binds neither the trial Court nor this Court. Therefore, even assuming that the said order is not challenged by the NIA, the same is inconsequential for this appeal.” [Para 9]

This reaffirmed the principle that each bail application must be independently evaluated, regardless of other related proceedings.

Interim Bail Conditions: Escort, No Handcuffing at Venue, and Coordination Between States

The High Court allowed the appeal “partly” and laid out stringent conditions to ensure security during the bail period:

“He shall execute personal bond in a sum of ₹1,00,000 and furnish two sureties… He shall deposit escort charges before the Trial Court… Escort Police shall not subject him to handcuffs at the venue… except as provided under Section 43 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.” [Para 10]

It further directed that all travel between Chennai and Bengaluru be coordinated by the prison and police authorities of Tamil Nadu and Karnataka, and that the accused remain under strict police escort and surveillance throughout.

High Court Balances Human Dignity with National Security Concerns

While making it clear that regular bail was out of question given the serious charges, the Karnataka High Court recognized that an accused’s familial rights do not evaporate merely due to pending charges, especially when participation in a daughter’s marriage is concerned.

By extending interim bail to include travel and by maintaining strict security protocols, the Court underscored that humanitarian relief can co-exist with national security, provided judicial discretion is exercised with due care and caution.

Date of Decision: 22 July 2025