Facts: The appellant, a veterinary doctor, is accused of involvement in the murder of Umesh Kolhe, a veterinary medical shop owner. The prosecution alleges that Kolhe posted a message supporting a controversial comment in a WhatsApp group where the appellant was the only Muslim member. The appellant, allegedly offended, took a screenshot of the message, altered the deceased's mobile number in the contact, added an instigating message, and circulated it to other groups and individuals. The prosecution claims this instigated the murder. The appellant's bail application was rejected by the Special Judge, leading to this appeal.
Procedural Posture: This is a criminal appeal against the impugned order of the Special Judge, City Civil and Sessions Court, Greater Mumbai, which rejected the appellant's bail application in Special Case No. 1493 of 2022. The case arises out of RC No.02/2022/NIA/MUM, investigated by the National Investigation Agency (NIA).
Issue: Whether the Special Judge was correct in rejecting the bail application of the appellant, considering the evidence presented by the prosecution, including the alleged instigating message, the appellant's association with the co-accused, and the extra-judicial confessions of the co-accused. Specifically, whether a prima facie case exists against the appellant for offences under the Indian Penal Code and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).
Holding: The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the rejection of bail, finding that a prima facie case exists against the appellant.
Reasoning: The Court reasoned that the appellant's actions, including altering the deceased's mobile number and circulating the instigating message, coupled with his association with the co-accused and the subsequent murder, established a prima facie case of conspiracy. The Court considered Section 14 of the Evidence Act, noting that the appellant's message indicated a specific intent to target the deceased. The court distinguished the case from precedents cited by the appellant's counsel, emphasizing that the available material demonstrated the appellant's involvement in the crime from its inception. The Court also considered the principles laid down in Barakathullah regarding the approach to bail applications under the UAPA, concluding that there were reasonable grounds to believe the accusation against the appellant was prima facie true. The court stated, "after igniting the anger with his instigating message, the Appellant shrewdly kept himself away from co-accused till the commission of murder, so that he cannot be held responsible for the crime. The 25 phone calls exchanged between him and A-5, also indicates the same. Meaning, the Appellant was quietly active behind the curtain.".