Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

Recently, the Supreme Court in the matter of Jalaluddin Khan v. Union of India has held that the witness narration in the charge sheet was different from the narration before the Magistrate and the Investigating Agencies must be fair while making charges against anyone. 

What was the Background of the Jalaluddin Khan v. Union of India   Case? 

• In the present case, the appellant was prosecuted under Sections 121, 121A and 122 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Sections 13, 18, 18A and 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA). 
• The appellant was referred to as respondent no.2 in the chargesheet. 
• It was stated in the chargesheet that the witnesses made the following statements: 
  • That the appellant’s wife used to own the building named Ahmad Palace and that the appellant had clandestinely shown that premises on the first floor of the said building were given for rent to one Athar Parwez – accused no. 1. 
  • That, the premises was used to conduct objectionable activities of an organization called Popular Front of India (PFI). 
  • That, the discussion allegedly involved the expansion of PFI, training of its members, Muslim empowerment, and plans to target individuals who made derogatory remarks about Islam. 
  • That the sum of Rs. 25,000 transferred to the appellant's son's account from the co accused. 
  • That the appellant was found removing certain goods from the premises right before the raid of the police. 
• The appellant along with the co accused applied for bail before the Special court which was rejected. 
• When an appeal was filed by the appellant and the co- accused before the Patna  High Court, the High Court granted bail to the other co-accused but rejected the bail of the appellant. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Supreme court in this case observed that the statement given by the witness in the charge sheet and before the magistrate differs from each other and has various discrepancies. 
• The Supreme Court also mentioned that the statement by the witness did not include the name of the appellant for her involvement in the alleged offence. 
•  It was also noted that there were no inferences that shows that the appellant gave any direction for attacks mentioned in the chargesheet. 
• It was also noted that the amount transferred to the bank account of the appellant son was the advance payment of the rent. 
• It was also noted by the Supreme Court that the goods removed before the police raid had no connection with the attacks as the nature of the goods were not specified in the charge sheet. 
• The Supreme court held that there was no evidence to show that the alleged crime was having involvement of the appellant. 
• Therefore, the Supreme Court granted bail to the appellant. 

Landmark Judgements:  

• NIA v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali, (2019): In this case elaborated guidelines were laid down on the approach that courts must partake in, in their application of the bail limitations under the UAP Act. 
• Shoma Kanti Sen v. State of Maharashtra and another (2024): It was held that to confirm the accusation under Section 43D (5) of the UAPA the test laid down must be fulfilled.