No bail for PFI leader’s Haj farewell as Delhi High Court prioritises security over religious grounds

While hearing the matter, Justices Pratibha M Singh and Madhu Jain noted the Kerala High Court’s observations regarding the PFI and the consequences of action taken against its leadership.

“While there can be no doubt that the ‘Haj Pilgrimage’ is a religious pilgrimage which is of immense importance and is a very pious trip for those who are undertaking it, the mere travel of family members for the ‘Haj Pilgrimage’ and for the Appellant to meet them is not sufficient ground to release the Appellant on interim bail,” the Delhi High Court said on May 5.

“Moreover, grant of interim bail entails the travel of the Appellant from Delhi to Bangalore, which could also result in security threat at the airports etc,” the bench added.

Bail plea based on Haj customs

Ahmed had sought six days’ interim bail on the ground that his mother and immediate family members were travelling for Haj pilgrimage and that it was customary in his community for relatives to meet and seek blessings before the journey.

Senior Advocate Shadan Farasat, appearing for Ahmed, argued that the request was limited, humanitarian and rooted in religious and cultural practice. He submitted that Haj ceremonies carried deep significance and that family members ordinarily gathered to bid farewell to pilgrims before departure.

The NIA opposed the plea, contending that Ahmed was a senior functionary of the banned organisation PFI and had played a key role in the organisation’s operations at the national level. The agency argued that his release, even temporarily, could allow him to interact with large sections of the community and potentially create security and law-and-order concerns.

Special Public Prosecutor Rahul Tyagi also argued that the accused could create “disturbances and disharmony” if released on interim bail.

Court examines allegations in chargesheet

• The Delhi High Court referred in detail to the allegations contained in the NIA chargesheet dated March 18, 2023.
• According to the prosecution, Ahmed had been associated with the PFI since 2012 and served as a member of its National Executive Council as well as secretary and general secretary of the organisation.
• The chargesheet alleged that he oversaw administrative work at the national level and participated in activities aimed at radicalising Muslim youth and creating communal divisions.
• The NIA further alleged that Ahmed visited alleged “terror camps” in Karnataka and other parts of the country, reviewed weapons training activities and motivated participants to build a “PFI army” and wage war against the Government of India with the objective of establishing an Islamic Caliphate by 2047.
• The agency also accused him of participating in meetings at the organisation’s Shaheen Bagh office in Delhi relating to recruitment, weapons training and financing of alleged unlawful activities.
• Ahmed’s counsel disputed the allegations and argued before the Delhi High Court that the accusations in the chargesheet were false.
• Farasat also contended that the weapons referred to by the agency were merely “self-defence weapons.”

Security concerns outweigh humanitarian grounds

• The Delhi High Court, however, found merit in the apprehensions raised by the NIA.
• It said Ahmed’s alleged role in the banned organisation and the possibility of public interaction during the pilgrimage-related gatherings raised serious concerns that could not be overlooked at this stage.
• Considering the allegations against Ahmed and the position he allegedly held within the organisation, releasing him on interim bail could pose security concerns, especially as the relief sought would involve travel from Delhi to Bengaluru and movement through public places, including airports, the Delhi High Court observed.
• The court also referred to its earlier judgment in O M A Salam vs National Investigation Agency, where the activities of the PFI and the disturbances allegedly caused after arrests of its members had been discussed.
• It additionally noted observations made by the Kerala High Court regarding the organisation and the consequences of action taken against its leadership.

‘No opinion on merits’

Dismissing the appeal, the Delhi High Court clarified that it had not examined the merits of the criminal allegations levelled against Ahmed and that its observations were confined to the issue of interim bail under Section 43D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.

“Considering the role of the Appellant as set out in the charge-sheet, and the role of the Appellant in the PFI organisation, this Court is not inclined to release the Appellant on interim bail,” the Delhi High Court held.