Police Have No Power To Probe Or File Chargesheet Under PCPNDT Act: Supreme Court Rules Cognizance Bar Absolute 'Cannot Claim Pension Scheme Post-Retirement After Accepting CPF Benefits': Supreme Court Rules Regularisation Doesn't Relate Back To Initial Appointment 'Offence Within Four Corners Of Room Not In Public View': Supreme Court Quashes SCST Act Charges Against School Manager Give A Dog A Bad Name And Hang Him: Supreme Court Quashes UP Gangsters Act Cases; Rules Punishing Mere Status Violates Article 20(1) Child Of Tender Age Easy Prey To Tutoring: Supreme Court Quashes Double Murder Conviction Based On Solitary Child Witness 'State Cannot Supplant PSC's Role By Conducting Exhaustive Eligibility Enquiry': Supreme Court Limits Executive Power In Post-Selection Document Verification Revenue Entry Neither Creates Nor Extinguishes Title: Supreme Court Holds Limitation Against Co-Owner Cannot Run Without Open And Unequivocal Ouster 125 CrPC | Obligation To Maintain Children Cannot Be Divided By Arithmetic Alone': Supreme Court Rules Mother's Income No Ground To Halve Father's Liability 'Scramble For Possession': Supreme Court Directs Appointment Of Advocate Receiver Amid Clash Between Consent Decree Execution & Gujarat Tenancy Act Claims 'Enmity Is A Double-Edged Weapon': Allahabad High Court Acquits Murder Convicts After Medical Evidence Flaws Expose 'Eye-Witness' Lies Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes Remand Extension Granted Without Notice To Accused, Grants Default Bail 167(2) CRPC No Violation Of Natural Justice If Borrower Fails To Produce Records Or Seek Personal Hearing: Calcutta High Court Upholds Bank's 'Fraud' Account Classification Cannot Exploit Entire Land's FAR For New Tower Once OC Is Issued Without Flat Owners' Consent: Karnataka High Court Mandates TDR Purchase Brethren Assembly Hall Is A 'Church' Under Foreign Liquor Rules, Bar Hotel Cannot Function Within Prohibited Distance: Kerala High Court Fence-Sitters Cannot Claim Arrears After Inordinate Delay, But Entitled To Notional Fixation For Pension: Madhya Pradesh High Court Strikes At The Foundation Of Institutional Integrity: Punjab And Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail In Medical PG Admission Fraud Case Foreign Law Degree Taken Directly After School Cannot Be Treated As 'First Degree' For Admission To 3-Year LL.B. In India: Bombay High Court Supreme Court Relaxes 3-Year Bar Practice Rule For Civil Judge Entry, Introduces 1-Year Practice & Clerkship Model

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