MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

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

Latest Legal News