Legal Provisions Involved: Section 50 and 439 OF CR.P.C., Section 21(4) of NIA Act, 2008, Sections 120B of IPC and Sections 17, 18, 18B and 20 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.
Judgement by: High Court of Karnataka.
Judge/Bench: Justice H.P. Sandesh and Justice Venkatesh Naik T.
Facts
The NIA alleged that the accused were part of a Ballari-based ISIS module involved in spreading ISIS ideology, recruiting and radicalising youth, and planning attacks. They were arrested in 2023 and later granted bail by the Special Court on the grounds that written grounds of arrest were not given to them. The NIA challenged this decision before the High Court.
Key Legal Provisions
Section 21(4) of NIA Act, 2008
Sections 17, 18, 18B and 20 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967
Issues Raised
Was the bail rightly granted only because written grounds of arrest were allegedly not supplied?
Arguments of the case
The NIA argued that the accused were informed about the reasons for arrest and that they were represented by lawyers from the beginning. It also said the objection was raised very late and no actual harm or prejudice was shown. The accused relied on Supreme Court judgments saying written grounds must be given.
Judgement
The High Court held that the objection was raised after a long delay and no prejudice was proved. It cancelled the bail of seven accused, directed that they be taken back into custody, and ordered the trial to be completed quickly.
Click here to VIEW the full judgement.
