Legal Provisions Involved: Sections 120B and 125 of IPC; Sections 17, 18, 18B and 43D(5) of UAPA; Article 21 and Article 22(1) of the Constitution.

Judgment by: Karnataka High Court.

Judge/Bench: Justice H.P. Sandesh and Justice Venkatesh Naik T.

Facts

The appellant was arrested in October 2020 by the NIA for allegedly being part of a conspiracy linked to ISIS/ISKP and helping in recruitment activities. After investigation, a charge sheet was filed. His bail request was rejected by the Special Court. He then approached the High Court claiming that he was not given written grounds of arrest, that there was delay in trial, and that his health was affected.

Key Legal Provisions

Sections 120B and 125 of IPC; Sections 17, 18, 18B and 43D(5) of UAPA; Article 21 and Article 22(1) of the Constitution.

Issues Raised

Can an accused get bail because he was not given written grounds of arrest, even though his arrest happened before the Supreme Court made it mandatory in 2023?

Arguments of the case

The accused argued that not giving written grounds violated his rights. The NIA argued that this rule applied only after the 2023 Supreme Court judgment and that there was strong evidence against him.

Judgment

The High Court dismissed the appeal. It said that the rule requiring written grounds of arrest applies only after the 2023 judgment. Since the arrest happened in 2020, oral information was enough at that time. The court also said that strict bail rules under UAPA apply and directed the trial court to complete the trial faster.

Click here to VIEW the full judgment.