In a pivotal legal decision, the Supreme Court granted bail to Jalaluddin Khan, who was arrested under the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). The ruling was issued on August 13th, emphasizing the judiciary's commitment to the principle that "bail is the rule, jail is an exception." This principle is upheld even in cases prosecuted under special statutes, highlighting the court's dedication to protecting fundamental rights in even the most serious of cases.

Jalaluddin Khan, notably booked under both the UAPA and sections of the Indian Penal Code—recently replaced by the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)—had been accused after renting out the top floor of his house to members of the outlawed Islamist outfit, Popular Front of India (PFI). The gravity of the charges underlined the severity of the accusations he faced.

The bench, comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and Augustine George Masih, articulated their judgment with a clear focus on the need for lawful assessment of bail petitions, particularly in cases bearing serious allegations. They stated, "Allegations of the prosecution may be very serious, but it is the court’s duty to consider the case for bail in accordance with the law. Bail is the rule and jail is the exception that applies even to special statutes. If courts start denying bail in deserving cases, it will be a violation of rights guaranteed under Article 21," thereby reinforcing the judiciary's role in balancing law enforcement with constitutional guarantees. Importantly, the court did not classify the PFI as a terrorist organization during the proceedings, which played a crucial role in the decision to grant bail.

The investigation by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) uncovered a sinister plan allegedly orchestrated by Jalaluddin Khan and his associates. According to the NIA, this group engaged in a "criminal conspiracy to carry out violent and terror acts" aimed at instilling fear and threatening the very fabric of national integrity and unity. As part of this conspiracy, the group secured rented premises at Ahmad Palace, Phulwarisharif (Patna). These locations were purportedly used for holding secretive meetings and conducting training sessions on executing violent acts.

The severity of their intentions was further highlighted by reports suggesting that the group aimed to disrupt the scheduled visit of Prime Minister Narendra Modi in 2022. Acting on precise intelligence, the Bihar Police launched a raid on July 11th, 2022, targeting the residence of Jalaluddin Khan, who notably retired from his role as a police constable. The subsequent police action led to Khan's arrest the following day, underscoring the immediate threat posed by this planned disruption. This raid not only thwarted potential violence but also significantly dismantled part of the network involved in this deep-rooted conspiracy.

Shocking details in the chargesheet

In the ongoing scrutiny of Jalaluddin Khan's activities, the courtroom was presented with compelling evidence by Aishwarya Bhati, the Additional Solicitor General of India. She highlighted the CCTV footage obtained from the Ahmad Palace, which vividly captured Khan and another suspect in the act of removing items from the building on June 6th and 7th, 2022. This footage became a cornerstone of the prosecution's argument, as these items were notably absent during the police raid on July 11th, 2022, suggesting a deliberate attempt by Khan to tamper with potential evidence.

Further damning was the testimony from a protected witness, as referenced in the charge sheet, which outlined a meeting and training session that took place on May 29th, 2022. This gathering, held on the first floor of the Ahmad Palace, was reportedly focused on discussing strategies for the growth of the Popular Front of India (PFI), the empowerment of the Muslim community, and detailed plans for the future. It is alleged that during this meeting, orders were issued to trained PFI members to target and eliminate individuals who had made derogatory remarks about Islam, a directive that followed controversial comments by former BJP spokesperson Nupur Sharma about Prophet Muhammad.

The financial transactions linked to these operations were also scrutinized, with revelations that Rs. 25,000 had been transferred to the account of Amir Jalal Khan, Jalaluddin Khan's elder son, by an absconding accused, further implicating Khan in facilitating PFI's agenda. The charge sheet accuses Khan of intentionally allowing the PFI to use the first floor of the building for its activities, with a fabricated rent agreement crafted to mislead the police.

Highlighting the depth of Khan's alleged connections, Bhati stressed that the lease under which the accused operated had ties to the Student Islamic Movement of India (SIMI), another organization banned for its terrorist activities. The accumulated evidence and the serious nature of the charges under Sections 13, 18, 18A, and 20 of the UAPA painted a grim picture of Khan's involvement in activities threatening national security.

Despite the accumulation of detailed and incriminating evidence, the court noted a particular detail about the ownership of the building involved in the case—it was registered in the name of Khan’s wife. This point was made amidst the backdrop of an extensive police operation sparked by information of a planned disruption to Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to Bihar. Acting on this tip, the Bihar Police executed a raid that unearthed a treasure trove of provocative material. Among the items seized were documents boldly envisioning an "India 2047 Towards Rule of Islamic India," not intended for public eyes, alongside pamphlets and propaganda materials linked to the Popular Front of India dated 20 February 2021, with a substantial count in both Hindi and Urdu.

The haul also included 49 cloth flags, magazines championing the cause of the PFI under the guise of national interest, and a rent agreement that, in the light of subsequent events, seemed less about real estate than about facilitating clandestine activities. A Samsung phone, equipped with a SIM card registered to Mohammed Jalaluddin, further linked him to the seized items and to anti-Indian operations.

Further cementing the case, a protected witness detailed a significant meeting held at Ahmad Palace on May 29, 2022. This gathering wasn't just a casual meetup but a well-attended strategic session involving up to forty-five individuals, including a list of names now familiar in the corridors of national security agencies: Mahboob Alam Nadvi, Sanaullah, Riyaz Mourif, and others, all connected to the PFI and presided over by Riyaz Firangipet from Karnataka. The agenda was chilling—discussions on PFI’s expansion and targeted killings as part of a broader insidious strategy.

The conclusive evidence provided by CCTV footage from Ahmad Palace paints a vivid picture of Jalaluddin Khan's activities before and during the police raid. On the 6th and 7th of July 2022, the cameras recorded the presence of individuals from multiple states, all named in the First Information Report (FIR), including Athar Parvej. Further footage from the 11th of July, around 7 pm, shows the Police of PS Phulwarisharif conducting a thorough raid on the first floor, with both Athar Parvej and Jalaluddin Khan visibly present. This footage not only confirms their presence but also captures Khan in the act of moving objects from the premises prior to the search, indicating an attempt to tamper with potential evidence. This tampering ties into subsequent findings where Rs 25,000 was discovered to have been deposited into the account of Khan’s son, hinting at financial transactions linked to the activities conducted at this location.

The charge sheet provides an alarming insight into the ambitions captured within the document titled “India 2047 Towards Rule of Islamic India.” Upon examination, this text was found to advocate for the imposition of Islamic law across India, revealing the serious ideological push behind the group's activities. However, in what may appear as a theatrical twist of legal reasoning, the court provided a somewhat peculiar counterargument. It noted that the charge sheet failed to specify which items Khan had moved from the first floor prior to the raid, suggesting a possibility that had he intended to remove incriminating materials, he would have moved those listed in the charge sheet.

Adding a layer of irony to the proceedings, the court remarked on the presence of CCTV cameras installed by Khan himself, implying a contradiction in his intentions. The bench stated, “If the appellant intended to allow the conduct of the objectionable activities of PFI by giving first-floor premises on rent, he would not have installed CCTV cameras.” This statement, dripping with judicial sarcasm, points to a nuanced interpretation of intent and oversight, leaving observers to mull over the enigmatic decisions that sometimes emerge from the courtrooms.

Court demands explanation from NIA

In a perplexing twist during the courtroom proceedings, the Supreme Court raised doubts about the testimony of a key prosecution witness concerning Jalaluddin Khan's alleged involvement in a meeting held on 29th May 2022. The witness’s account did not explicitly state that Khan was present at this meeting, nor did it list his name among the attendees, although it was later acknowledged that he owned the building where the meeting took place. The court noted that the witness had instead detailed discussions centered on enhancing the socio-political stature of Muslims through education, administration, and training.

The bench critically observed, “Going by the witness’s version, we find that there was no discussion about the activities of PFI in the meeting held on 29th May 2022.” It was this interpretation that led the court to accuse the charge sheet of distorting the true statements of the witness, alleging that it contained fabricated assertions that the witness never made. This led to a stern demand for an explanation from the National Investigation Agency (NIA), underscoring the necessity for an impartial investigation.

The court then delved into past rulings to scrutinize the conditions under which bail could be granted or denied, especially under stringent laws like the UAPA. Despite the grave nature of the allegations and the potential threat posed by such actions, the Supreme Court found in favor of Khan. It declared, "There isn’t any concrete evidence to suggest he encouraged, assisted, or facilitated the performance of any unlawful actions." Further, it firmly stated, “Assuming that the co-accused were indulging in terrorist acts or were making any act preparatory to the commission of terrorist acts, there is absolutely no material on record to show that there was any conspiracy to commit any terrorist act to which the appellant was a party. There is no material produced on record to show that the appellant advocated, abetted, advised, or incited the commission of terrorist acts or any preparatory activity.”

In an ongoing attempt to unravel the complexities of Jalaluddin Khan’s case, the Supreme Court critically examined the specifics of the charge sheet, especially regarding the leasing arrangements for the building's first floor. The court highlighted that these negotiations were handled by Khan's son, raising questions about the direct responsibility of Khan himself. This point led the court to express skepticism about Khan’s intentional involvement in any terrorist activities merely by providing property for rent.

The court observed, "if the charge sheet is accurate, then it is impossible to establish, even based on a preliminary inquiry, that Khan intentionally enabled the commission or planning of terrorist actions by renting out the first floor of the building." Furthermore, it was noted that there was no evidence suggesting that Khan had established any sort of camps designed to offer training for terrorist activities. This absence of direct involvement or facilitation in the charge sheet leaves a gaping hole in the prosecution's case against him.

Delving deeper into the legal definitions, the court pointed out a significant oversight in the prosecution’s labeling of Khan as a terrorist. "As regards the second part of being a member of a terrorist organisation, as per Section 2(m), a terrorist organisation means an organisation listed in the first schedule or an organisation operating under the same name as the organisation was listed. The charge sheet does not mention the name of the terrorist organisation within the meaning of Section 2(m) of which the appellant was a member," the court stated, clearly asserting that the Popular Front of India (PFI), to which Khan was allegedly connected, does not qualify as a terrorist group under the current legal framework.

Supreme Court announces the verdict

In a decision that might leave more than a few eyebrows raised, the Supreme Court ruled that the contents of the charge sheet against Jalaluddin Khan do not suffice to establish a believable suspicion that he committed offenses under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). The court declared, "We have taken the charge sheet and the statement of witness Z as they are without conducting a mini-trial. Looking at what we have held earlier, it is impossible to record a prima facie finding that there were reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against the appellant of commission of offences under the UAPA was prima facie true. No antecedents of the appellant have been brought on record." This statement culminated in the assertion, "The upshot of the above discussion is that there was no reason to reject the bail application filed by the appellant."

The Supreme Court also criticized the lower courts for not considering the evidence within the charge sheet adequately, suggesting a possible preoccupation with the broader activities of the Popular Front of India (PFI) rather than the specifics of the appellant's case. "Perhaps the focus was more on the activities of PFI, and therefore, the appellant’s case could not be properly appreciated. When a case is made out for a grant of bail, the courts should not have any hesitation in granting bail. The allegations of the prosecution may be very serious," the court noted. It further reiterated a long-standing judicial principle, declaring "Bail is the rule and jail is an exception" as a settled law. The court added, "Even in a case like the present case where there are stringent conditions for the grant of bail in the relevant statutes, the same rule holds good with only modification that the bail can be granted if the conditions in the statute are satisfied. The rule also means that once a case is made out for the grant of bail, the court cannot decline to grant bail."

In a climactic twist to a contentious legal saga, the Supreme Court has overturned previous rulings with a flourish, ordering Jalaluddin Khan's release on bail. The court pronounced, "Hence, the impugned orders are set aside. The appeal is allowed. The appellant is directed to be enlarged on bail on the terms and conditions as may be fixed by the special court," effectively changing the course of Khan's judicial encounter. The decision mandates that Khan appear before the special judge within seven days following the judgment, where he will be granted bail "subject to suitable terms and conditions" until the trial concludes. The court emphasized that the conditions of the bail would be crafted after hearing the respondent’s attorney, ensuring a semblance of procedural fairness.

The court also made it clear that the conclusions drawn in this judgment were meant solely for the purpose of evaluating Khan's bail request. "The reasons are confined to the case of the appellant. The same will have no bearing on the trial and cases of the co-accused," it highlighted, trying to isolate this verdict from influencing ongoing or future proceedings involving other suspects.

This directive comes despite Khan being implicated under severe charges, including sections 121, 121A, and 122 of the Indian Penal Code, alongside sections 13, 18, 18A, and 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, which frame him in a serious light. Originally, when Khan sought bail from the special court under the UAPA, his request was denied, pushing him to elevate his plea to the High Court, where he faced rejection again, even as his co-accused managed to secure bail under the impugned judgment.