DATE: 20/01/2026
COURT: High Court of Bombay
BENCH: Justice A.S. Gadkari and Justice
Shyam C. Chandak
FACTS:
The present appeal arose from the rejection
of a bail application filed by the appellant (Accused No. 6) in Special Case
No. 1493 of 2022, arising out of RC No. 02/2022/NIA/MUM, registered for
offences under Sections 109, 120B, 302, 153A, 201 and 505 of the IPC and
Sections 16, 18 and 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. The
prosecution case traces its origin to a controversial comment made by an
ex-spokesperson of a political party during a television debate on 26.05.2022,
which triggered widespread outrage, particularly within the Muslim community in
Amravati. Amidst heightened communal tension, the deceased, Umesh Kolhe, a
veterinary medical shop owner, posted a WhatsApp message supporting the
controversial comment. The appellant, a veterinary doctor and acquaintance of
the deceased, took offence to the post and circulated a screenshot of it with
an allegedly instigating message, after deliberately altering the deceased’s
mobile number to reveal his identity.
According to the prosecution, the
appellant’s message was widely circulated in various WhatsApp groups, following
which he met Accused No. 5, leading to the hatching of a criminal conspiracy.
Several meetings among co-accused followed, culminating in the decision to kill
the deceased to avenge the alleged insult to religious faith and to instill
fear in the public. On 21.06.2022, the deceased was brutally stabbed and
murdered. Initially registered by the local police, the case was later
transferred to the NIA, which added offences under the UAPA. After completion
of investigation and sanction under Section 45 of the UAPA, a charge-sheet was
filed. The appellant, arrested on 01.07.2022, sought bail, which was rejected
by the Special Court, leading to the present appeal.
ISSUES:
The principal issues before the Court were
whether there existed reasonable grounds to believe that the accusation against
the appellant was prima facie true so as to attract the bail-restricting
provisions of Section 43D(5) of the UAPA, and whether prolonged incarceration,
alleged weakness of evidence, and reliance on extra-judicial confessions
justified the grant of bail under Article 21 of the Constitution.
JUDGEMENT WITH REASOING:
The Court dismissed the appeal and upheld
the rejection of bail, holding that there were reasonable grounds to believe
that the accusations against the appellant were prima facie true. Given the
gravity and heinous nature of the offence, involving terrorist acts intended to
strike fear in society, the Court declined to exercise its discretion to grant
bail.
The Court undertook a cumulative assessment
of the material on record, including the appellant’s instigating WhatsApp
message, alteration of the deceased’s mobile number to expose his identity,
wide circulation of the message in multiple groups, and frequent telephonic
contact with Accused No. 5, who acted as a key conduit in the conspiracy. The
Court rejected the appellant’s contention that his intention was merely to
affect the deceased’s business, observing that the language of the message, its
dissemination beyond alleged customers, and the prevailing tense communal
atmosphere demonstrated a clear intent to provoke retaliation. Applying Section
14 of the Evidence Act, the Court held that the appellant’s conduct revealed a
culpable state of mind directed at avenging the deceased.
Further, the Court emphasized that
conspiracy is seldom proved by direct evidence and can be inferred from
circumstantial material indicating a meeting of minds. The appellant’s absence
from subsequent meetings was held to be immaterial, as the surrounding
circumstances, including his initial instigation, subsequent meeting with
Accused No. 5, multiple phone calls, and his presence near earlier gatherings collectively
established his involvement from the inception of the conspiracy. Relying on
NIA v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali and Union of India v. Barakathullah, the Court
reiterated that at the bail stage under the UAPA, the evidence must be assessed
on broad probabilities without detailed examination, and the materials produced
by the prosecution must be presumed to be true. Finding the accusations
supported by material of sufficient probative value, the Court held that
continued detention did not violate Article 21 and that the statutory bar on
bail squarely applied.
ANALYSIS:
This decision reaffirms the stringent
threshold governing bail under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act,
particularly the operation of Section 43D(5), which mandates denial of bail
once the Court is satisfied that the accusation is prima facie true. The
Court’s approach reflects faithful adherence to the framework laid down in NIA
v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali, requiring courts at the bail stage to assess the
prosecution material on broad probabilities without engaging in meticulous
evaluation or testing admissibility. By treating the contents of digital
evidence, call records, and surrounding circumstances as presumptively reliable
at this stage, the Court reinforced the legislative intent of prioritizing
societal security over individual liberty where allegations disclose
involvement in terrorist acts.
At the same time, the judgment illustrates
the judiciary’s method of inferring criminal conspiracy from circumstantial
evidence rather than direct participation in the final act. The Court
emphasized that the appellant’s role as an instigator, through targeted
exposure of the deceased, provocative messaging, and sustained communication
with a key conspirator was sufficient to establish a meeting of minds,
notwithstanding his absence from subsequent planning meetings or the scene of
the crime. By rejecting the argument that prolonged incarceration alone could
override the statutory embargo on bail, the Court underscored that Article 21
considerations yield where the prosecution material demonstrates credible
involvement in grave offences with serious societal ramifications. The ruling
thus strengthens the jurisprudence that indirect participation and ideological
instigation can attract the rigours of UAPA bail restrictions when supported by
coherent and probative circumstantial evidence.
info@adhwaitha.com