Karnataka, India: On April 21, the Karnataka High Court dismissed plea of five members of the alleged banned terrorist organisation Popular Front of India (PFI) challenging the Special Court’s order which rejected the grant of default bail.
The Government of India banned PFI in September 2022 and the accused were arrested u/s 121, 121A, 121B, 153A and 109 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and under Section 13 and 18(1)(B) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) on the ground that the accused are members of the banned organisation and were engaged in unlawful activities.
On January 17, the Special Court rejected the accused’s applications seeking default bail. Furthermore, the Special Court held that it has the jurisdiction to hear the case.
The accused argued before the High Court that the Special Court’s order is without jurisdiction and thus their plea seeking a writ of habeas corpus is maintainable. Furthermore, the accused argued that filing of chargesheet does not divest them of the right to bail. The accused also argued that there is no notification u/s 22(1) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (NIA Act) to constitute a Special Court.
However, the respondents argued that the Government of India issued a notification in December 2012 notifying the Court of 49th Additional City Civil Court and Sessions Judge, Bangalore City to be Special Court u/s 11(1) of the Act.
The High Court observed that the NIA Act was enacted with a view to constituting an investigating agency at the national level to investigate and prosecute the offences relating to sovereignty, security and integrity of India, security of State, etc.
The High Court said, “Section 11 of the Act deals with power of the Central Government to designate Court of sessions as Special Courts, whereas Section 22 of the Act deals with power of the Government to constitute the Special Courts.”
The High Court observed that the Government of India’s 2012 order is valid and therefore, the Special Court has the jurisdiction to deal with “the order of extension of remand as well as the applications seeking default bail.” Furthermore, the High Court held, “The provisions of Section 22(3) of the Act has no application to the fact situation of the case.”
The High Court said, “The contention urged by the petitioners that the orders of extension of remand and order rejecting applications for default bail are without jurisdiction and cannot be sustained.” The High Court concluded, “For the aforementioned reasons, we do not find any merit in this writ petition. Needless to state that the petitioners shall be at liberty to take recourse to such remedy as may be available to them in law.”
