Bail | Right to Speedy Trial is a Fundamental Right Under Article 21: PH High Court    |     Postal Department’s Power to Enhance Penalties Time-Barred, Rules Allahabad High Court    |     Tenants Cannot Cross-Examine Landlords Unless Relationship is Disputed: Madras High Court    |     NDPS | Conscious Possession Extends to Vehicle Drivers: Telangana High Court Upholds 10-Year Sentence in Ganja Trafficking Case    |     Aid Reduction Of Without Due Process Unlawful: Rajasthan High Court Restores Full Grants for Educational Institutions    |     Assessment of Notional Income in Absence of Proof Cannot Be 'Mathematically Precise,' Says Patna High Court    |     NCLT's Resolution Plan Overrides State Tax Claims: Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes Demands Against Patanjali Foods    |     An Agreement is Not Voidable if the Party Could Discover the Truth with Ordinary Diligence: Calcutta High Court Quashes Termination of LPG Distributorship License    |     Independent Witnesses Contradict Prosecution's Story: Chhattisgarh High Court Acquit Accused in Arson Case    |     Merely Being a Joint Account Holder Does Not Attract Liability Under Section 138 of NI Act:  Gujarat High Court    |     Higher Court Cannot Reappreciate Evidence Unless Perversity is Found: Himachal Pradesh High Court Refused to Enhance Maintenance    |     Perpetual Lease Allows Division of Property: Delhi High Court Affirms Partition and Validity of Purdah Wall    |     "Party Autonomy is the Backbone of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Upholds Sole Arbitrator Appointment Despite Party’s Attempts to Frustrate Arbitration Proceedings    |     Videography in Temple Premises Limited to Religious Functions: Kerala High Court Orders to Restrict Non-Religious Activities on Temple Premises    |     Past Service Must Be Counted for Pension Benefits: Jharkhand High Court Affirms Pension Rights for Daily Wage Employees    |     'Beyond Reasonable Doubt’ Does Not Mean Beyond All Doubt: Madras High Court Upholds Life Imprisonment for Man Convicted of Murdering Mother-in-Law    |    

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