Clarification of “terrorist act” under UAPA Section 15; upholds narrow interpretation, offers persuasive authority for bail in UAPA cases
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRA (DB)/137/2025 of Md. Imadul Haque Vs National Investigation Agency |
| CNR | WBCHCA0167602025 |
| Decision Date | 26-08-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | ALLOWED |
| Judgment Author | Hon’ble Justice Debangsu Basak |
| Concurring or Dissenting Judges | Hon’ble Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi (concurring) |
| Court | Calcutta High Court |
| Bench | Hon’ble Justice Debangsu Basak and Hon’ble Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi |
| Precedent Value | Persuasive for High Courts; binding on subordinate courts under Calcutta HC |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms narrow interpretation of “terrorist act” under Section 15 UAPA |
| Type of Law | Criminal Law – Bail under UAPA and IPC |
| Question of Law | Whether Section 18 UAPA can be applied for mere possession of crude bombs and terrorizing villagers absent intent to threaten the unity, integrity, security (including economic security) or sovereignty of India as defined in Section 15? |
| Ratio Decidendi | The definition of “terrorist act” in Section 15 UAPA requires an intent to threaten or likely threaten the unity, integrity, security, economic security or sovereignty of India, or to strike terror in the people of India (or any foreign country) in furtherance of such threats. Mere stockpiling of crude bombs and local terrorizing does not satisfy these elements. Therefore, prima facie UAPA Section 18 cannot be sustained on the available material, and bail cancellation on that ground was improper. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Police registered FIR for a bomb blast on January 17, 2022 (Beldanga PS Case No. 26/2022), seizing over 100 crude bombs. NIA took over on September 20, 2022, and charged the appellant under IPC Sections 120B/201/304, Explosive Substances Act Sections 4/5/6, and UAPA Section 18. Bail granted on May 21, 2022 was cancelled on March 10, 2025 after UAPA provisions were added. No material shows intent to threaten national security. |
| Citations |
|
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts under Calcutta High Court |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts dealing with bail under UAPA |
| Distinguishes | Local public disorder and gang-related violence from “terrorist acts” threatening national security under Section 15 UAPA |
| Follows | Hitendra Vishnu Thakur (1994 4 SCC 602); Natasha Narwal (2021 SCC OnLine Del 3254); Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali (2019 5 SCC 1) |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Clarifies that Section 15 UAPA requires intent to threaten unity, integrity, security (including economic security) or sovereignty of India, or to strike terror for those national ends.
- Mere possession or stockpiling of explosives and terrorizing local villagers does not satisfy the statutory definition of “terrorist act.”
- Bail cancellation under Section 43D UAPA proviso demands prima facie satisfaction of UAPA elements; absence of national‐security intent negates that threshold.
- Lawyers can challenge UAPA Section 18 charges when the available material does not demonstrate the statutory intent under Section 15.
- The court considered length and complexity of trial as a factor favoring bail in UAPA cases with numerous witnesses.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- Statutory Text: Divided Section 15(1) UAPA into five distinct limbs—threat to unity/integrity/security/economic security/sovereignty of India, or striking terror in people (domestic or foreign).
- Law Commission & Precedents: Cited 43rd Law Commission Report, Ramesh Thappar and Lohia to differentiate between serious state-endangering disorder and local breaches of peace.
- Application to Facts: No materials showed appellant intended to threaten national security; evidence pointed only to local terrorizing in gang warfare.
- Prima Facie Requirement: Under proviso to Section 43D, bail courts must be satisfied that accusations under UAPA are prima facie true; that threshold was not met.
- Bail Considerations: Trial complexity and absence of misuse of liberty weighed in favor of granting bail despite pending multiple charges.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Md. Imadul Haque)
- Initially granted bail; subsequent UAPA charges added without fresh material showing intent to threaten national security.
- Distinction between ordinary violent offences and “terrorist acts” under Section 15.
- Relied on Hitendra Vishnu Thakur and Natasha Narwal to argue against over-extension of UAPA.
Respondent (NIA)
- Appellant procured and stockpiled over 100 crude bombs with intent to terrorize local populace.
- Case diary, protected witness statements and dying declaration link appellant to terrorizing activity.
- Co-accused bail was rejected; appellant similarly situated; UAPA charges rightly attracted.
Factual Background
A bomb blast on January 17, 2022 in Beldanga Police Station area led to FIR under IPC Sections 120B/324/326/34 and Explosive Substances Act Sections 3/4/5. Police seized numerous live crude bombs. NIA took over on September 20, 2022, re-registered the case, and filed a charge-sheet on December 12, 2023 under IPC, Explosive Substances Act, and UAPA Section 18. The trial court granted bail on May 21, 2022, then cancelled it on March 10, 2025 upon addition of UAPA charges; appellant appealed.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 15 UAPA: Defines “terrorist act” by reference to intent against unity, integrity, security (including economic security), or sovereignty of India, or striking terror; enumerates means and consequences.
- Section 43D proviso UAPA: Bail court must be satisfied that accusations are “prima facie true” before granting bail in UAPA cases.
- Court “reads down” any broader interpretation to confine UAPA to offences impacting national security, not every form of violence.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – affirms narrow scope of “terrorist act” under existing UAPA jurisprudence.
Citations
- Hitendra Vishnu Thakur and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors., 1994 4 SCC 602
- Natasha Narwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2021 SCC OnLine Del 3254
- National Investigation Agency v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali, 2019 5 SCC 1
- Ramesh Thappar v. State of Madras, 1950 SCR 594
- Superintendent, Central Prison, Fatehgarh v. Ram Manohar Lohia, 1960 2 SCR 821