Sale Deed Invalid After Revocation of Power of Attorney: Madras High Court Supreme Court Declares WhatsApp Service of Notices Invalid Under Notices under Section 41-A CrPC/Section 35 BNSS Doctrine of Natural Justice Cannot Be Invoked to Evade Regulatory Compliance: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Petition Against Consumer Forum Order Presence of Metallic Foreign Bodies in X-ray Corroborates Firearm Injury" – Patna High Court School Records Alone Insufficient to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Without Corroboration: Chhattisgarh High Court Acquits Accused in Rape Case Double Payment for the Same Claim Is Against Public Policy: Karnatka High Court Remits Case to Commercial Court Land Acquisition | Once the Government Funds an Acquisition, Public Purpose Cannot Be Disputed: Bombay High Court When a Man Acts in the Heat of the Moment, Law Must Recognize the Loss of Self-Control: KERALA HIGH COURT Absence of Bank Seal on Cheque Return Memo Not a Ground for Acquittal: Calcutta High Court Convicts Accused in Cheque Bounce Case Confiscation is Not Automatic: Andhra Pradesh High Court Orders Release of Seized Vehicle in NDPS Case False Allegations in Matrimonial Disputes Can Constitute Mental Cruelty Justifying Divorce: Gujarat High Court Bail Cannot Be Granted in Cases of Commercial Drug Trafficking: Delhi High Court Rejects Bail Plea of Alleged International Drug Cartel Member Magistrate Can Rely on Victim’s Section 164 Statement Over Section 161 Statement: Allahabad High Court Upholds Closure Report in Kidnapping and Rape Case State Liable for Electrocution Injury to Minor Due to Uncovered High-Voltage Wire: J&K and Ladakh High Court Unexplained Delay of 586 Days in Filing Appeal Cannot Be Condoned as a Matter of Right: Supreme Court Sets Aside Karnataka High Court’s Order A Purchaser During Litigation Cannot Claim Superior Rights Over a Decree-Holder: Supreme Court Upholds Doctrine of Lis Pendens Violation of Natural Justice at the Initial Stage Cannot Be Cured at the Appellate Stage: Supreme Court Denial of Fair Hearing Strikes at the Very Core of Justice: Supreme Court Upholds Selection of Shiksha Karmis Merit Alone Must Prevail: Supreme Court Strikes Down Residence-Based Quota in PG Medical Courses Selective Prosecution and Missing Witnesses: Supreme Court Slams Conviction Based on Incomplete Evidence Conviction Cannot Rest on Unreliable Eyewitnesses and Mere Recovery of Weapon: Supreme Court Acquits Murder Accused Need for Legal Recognition of Live-in Relationships:  Rajasthan High Court Calls for Mandatory Registration Judicial Discipline Demands Uniformity: Rajasthan High Court Refers Protection of Married Persons in Live-in Relationships to Special Bench

Terrorism Offenses Strike at National Security and Public Order, Necessitate Higher Threshold for Bail: Bombay High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment, the Bombay High Court has dismissed the bail applications of Momin Moiuddin Gulam Hasan and Asif Aminul Hussain Khan Adhikari, accused in a high-profile anti-terrorism case. The court, comprising Justices Revati Mohite Dere and Gauri Godse, underscored the gravity of the charges and the critical need for meticulous judicial scrutiny in terrorism-related offenses.

The appellants, Momin Moiuddin Gulam Hasan and Asif Aminul Hussain Khan Adhikari, are currently in judicial custody at Taloja Central Prison, Navi Mumbai. They were apprehended by the Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS), Mumbai, under accusations of being involved in terrorist activities that pose a severe threat to national security. The appellants sought bail, arguing that there was insufficient evidence to substantiate the allegations against them.

The court highlighted the seriousness of the charges against the appellants, noting, “Terrorism-related offenses strike at the very root of national security and public order. Such allegations necessitate a higher threshold for granting bail.”

The court observed that the evidence presented by the ATS, including communications and material seized during raids, pointed towards a prima facie case against the appellants. “The material on record, though subject to further scrutiny during trial, sufficiently indicates the involvement of the appellants in activities detrimental to the nation’s security,” the bench noted.

Emphasizing the potential risk of absconding, the court stated, “Given the severity of the charges, there exists a substantial risk that the appellants might abscond or tamper with evidence if released on bail.”

The judgment delved into the principles guiding the grant of bail in cases involving serious offenses. It reiterated the need for a balanced approach, ensuring that the accused’s rights are protected while also safeguarding public interest and national security. “In cases of this nature, the courts must tread with caution, ensuring that the release of the accused does not compromise the integrity of the investigation or the safety of the public,” the judgment stated.

Justice Revati Mohite Dere remarked, “The allegations of terrorism are of such a grave nature that they demand a stringent scrutiny of the bail applications, ensuring that the decision does not inadvertently facilitate any further threat to national security.”

The Bombay High Court’s decision to deny bail to the accused in this anti-terrorism case underscores the judiciary’s commitment to addressing serious offenses with due diligence. By affirming the necessity for stringent scrutiny in cases involving national security, this judgment is likely to influence the handling of similar cases in the future, reinforcing the legal framework against terrorism.

 

Date of Decision:15th July 2024

Momin Moiuddin Gulam Hasan @ Moin Mistri VS The State of Maharashtra

Similar News