[2026:RJ-JP:10572-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Criminal Appeal (Db) No. 49/2024 Mohammad Sohail S/o Shri Mohammad Salim, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Plot No. 13, Sector 12, Murshid Nagar, Police Station Savina, Udaipur Rajasthan (At Present Confined In Central Jail Jaipur) ----Accused Appellant Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor ----Respondent Connected With D.B. Criminal Appeal (Db) No. 39/2024 Sadiq Saraf @ Sadiq Hussain S/o Shri Abdul Samad, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Nayapura, Raigar Basti, Police Station Kotwali, Baran, District Baran (Rajasthan) (Presently Lodged At Central Jail, Jaipur) ----Accused Appellant Versus National Investigation Agencies, Through Special Public Prosecutor ----Respondent D.B. Criminal Appeal (Db) No. 121/2025 1. Vajid Ali @ Vicky Son Of Shri Sabir Ali, R/o House No 59, New Saubhagya Furniture House Main Road, Kunhadi Kota Rajasthan 2. Mubarik Ali Alias Mubarak Ali Son Of Shri Abdul Sattar, Resident G-383, Bombay Yojna Opp Truck Union, Subhash Nagar, A Kota (Rajasthan) Permanent Resident Village Mawasa Police Station Kaithoon Kota (Rajasthan) (At Present both the accused are confined in Central Jail Jaipur) ----Accused Appellants Versus National Investigation Agency (N.I.A.), Through Special Public Prosecutor ----Respondent [2026:RJ-JP:10572-DB] (2 of 10) [CRLAD-49/2024] For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sayed Shahid Hasan, Sr. Counsel assisted by Mr. Mohd. Haris, Advocate Mr. Ishan Raj Khan, Advocate Mr. D.K. Sondhi, Advocate Mr. Aquif Khan, Advocate Mr. Amaan Alvi, Advocate Mr. Fahad Hasan, Advocate Mr. Mohd. Tahir, Advocate Mr. Mohd. Haris, Advocate Mr. Mohd. Faisal, Advocate & Mr. Anas Khan, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sneh Deep Khyaliya, Special Public Prosecutor for NIA assisted by Mr. Siddharth Sharma, Advocate Mr. Deepak Choudhary, Advocate Mr. Himanshu Choudhary, Advocate HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL Judgment 1. Date of Conclusion of arguments 12.03.2026 2. Date on which the judgment was reserved 12.03.2026 3. Whether the full judgment or only the operative part is pronounced Full Judgment 4. Date of Pronouncement 19.03.2026 1. Earlier, all the appellants filed the bail applications before this Court and after examining their individual case on merit, this court dismissed their bail applications vide orders dated 27.08.2025. 2. Being aggrieved by the orders dated 27.08.2025 passed by this Court, the appellants approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court by filing SLP and the Hon’ble Supreme Court while deciding the SLP(s) directed this Court to decide the matter afresh [2026:RJ-JP:10572-DB] (3 of 10) [CRLAD-49/2024] on the following grounds as mentioned in para No.4 of the order dated 12.01.2026 passed in SLP (Criminal) No.17294/2025 :- “4. The consequential sentence, being at variance from five years to life imprisonment, it seems to us that the High Court is expected to consider various factors like (i) the gravity and nature of the offence, (ii) the period already spent in custody; (iii) likelihood of tampering with the evidence; (iv) the stage of the trial; and (v) likelihood of misuse of concession of bail by a repeat crime, family circumstances and other mitigating circumstances.” 3. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants Vajid Ali and Mubarik Ali were not named in the FIR. However, they were subsequently arrayed as accused in the 2nd supplementary charge-sheet. 4. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the investigating agency has though recovered a Taekwondo martial art uniform from appellant - Vajid Ali and four knives from appellant - Mubarik Ali in the house of Naushad Ali, but both articles are easily available in the market. He further submits that the sealed packet containing the knives did not bear the signature of Naushad Ali. 5. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the allegation against the accused appellant Sadiq Saraf that he collected the funds to give physical and weapon training to the Muslim youths and the allegation against accused appellant Mohammad Sohail that he organized a rally, incited the religious sentiments of members of a minority community and raised the inflammatory slogans, are also false and baseless as no rally was [2026:RJ-JP:10572-DB] (4 of 10) [CRLAD-49/2024] organized on 9.6.2022 because the requisite permission was not granted. 6. 6. Learned Sr. Counsel further submits that on the basis of phone records and other documents, the investigating agency is projecting the appellants as the members of unlawful organization – PFI, but in-fact, they have no concerned with them. The accused appellants have been falsely implicated in this matter on the basis of statement of co-accused persons, whose statements were recorded under coercion and threat. The disclosure statement itself appears to be concocted and fabricated. 7. Learned Sr. Counsel further submits that except accused appellant Sadiq Saraf, other accused have no criminal antecedents. So far as accused appellant Sadif Saraf is concerned, learned Sr. Counsel submits that although 3 cases were registered against him, but in one case he was acquitted, in another case FIR was quashed and third case is pending trial in the Court. 8. Learned Sr. Counsel further submits that accused appellants Vajid Ali and Mubarik Ali have remained in custody for more than 2 years and 4 months; the accused appellant Sadiq Saraf has remained in custody for more than 3 years and 5 months; and the accused appellant Mohammad Sohail has remained in custody for more than 3 years. Now nothing is to be investigated or recovered from the appellants. Out of 173 witnesses, statement of only 13 witnesses have been recorded so far. The trial is not likely to conclude in near future, therefore, the appellants may be released on bail. [2026:RJ-JP:10572-DB] (5 of 10) [CRLAD-49/2024] 9. Learned Sr. Counsel further submits that from a perusal of the contents of the FIR, no offence under Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 is made out against the appellants. 10. In support of the contentions, learned senior counsel for the appellants has placed reliance upon the following judgments:- (i). Usmanbhai Dawoodbhai Memon and Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat reported in 1998 (2) SCC 271. (ii). Vernon Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Anr., reported in 2023 (1) SCALE 313. (iii).Athar Parwez Vs. Union of India reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 3762. (iv).Gurwinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Anr., reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 1777. (v). MD. Tanveer @ Tanveer Barkati Vs. Union of India (Criminal Appeal No.533 of 2026) decided on 28.01.2026. 11. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has opposed the appeals and submitted that all the appellants are involved in unlawful activities and are associated with a banned organization, namely PFI. Counsel further submits that during investigation, the protected witnesses and others have made specific allegations against the appellants. Counsel further submits that the appellants collected fund of about Rs. 3.00 crores in the name of ‘Jakat’ for which no proper record was maintained. [2026:RJ-JP:10572-DB] (6 of 10) [CRLAD-49/2024] Counsel further submits that the appellants were indulged in recruiting the youths for PFI and giving them training for anti- national activities, including Taekwondo training, knife training and weapons training. The Taekwondo martial art uniform and knives were also recovered from them. He further submits that the rally was organized in which inflammatory slogans, detrimental to the sovereignty and integrity of the nation, were raised and pamphelets were disseminated, for which police registered FIR. The accused appellants posted objectionable post on social media, so that hatred speech can be disseminated amongst different religious groups in India. 12. Counsel further submits that the defence counsel took number of adjournments before the trial court and they are filing applications one after another with a view to prolong the trial of the case. He further submits that the accused appellants have committed the offence under IPC and Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, which prescribe a minimum sentence of five years, but which may extend to life imprisonment. Counsel further submits that out of 173 witnesses, statement of 13 witnesses have been recorded so far and the statements of the protected witnesses and material witnesses are yet to be recorded. If the appellants are released on bail, there is likelihood of tempering with the evidence of protected witnesses and material witnesses, therefore, the bail applications filed on behalf of the appellants be dismissed. [2026:RJ-JP:10572-DB] (7 of 10) [CRLAD-49/2024] 13. In support of the contentions, counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents placed reliance upon the following judgments:- (i). NIA Vs. Zahoor Ahmed Shah Watali reported in 2019 (5) SCC 1. (ii). Arup Bhuyan Vs. State of Assam and Anr., reported in 2023 (8) SCC 745. (iii).Mazhar Khan Vs. N.I.A. New Delhi (Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No(s).14091/2023. (iv).Gurwinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Anr., reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 109. (v). Union of India (UOI) rep. by the Inspector of Police, National Investigation Agency, Chennai Branch Vs. Barakathullah and Ors., reported in 2021 (5) SCR 1011. (vi).Firozuddin Basheeruddin and Ors. Vs. State of Kerala reported in 2001 (7) SCC 596. 14. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record as well as the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 15. In the present case, the period of custody of the appellants is as under: Name of accused appellant Date of arrest Period of custody Vajid Ali 2.11.2023 More than 2 years and 4 months [2026:RJ-JP:10572-DB] (8 of 10) [CRLAD-49/2024] Mubarik Ali 2.11.2023 More than 2 years and 4 months Sadiq Saraf 22.9.2022 More than 3 years and 5 months Mohammad Sohail 10.2.2023 More than 3 years 16. Although the accused appellants are in custody for the period, as mentioned above, but from the material on record, it reveals that after filing of charge sheet(s) against the accused appellants, the trial court took cognizance of the alleged offences against the accused appellants and vide its order dated 19.10.2024 framed charges against the accused appellants Mohammad Sohail and Sadiq Saraf for the offence under Section 120B, Section 153-A IPC and Sections 13, 17, 18, 18A and 18-B of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967; against accused appellant Vajid Ali for the offence under Sections 120B, 153A IPC and Sections 13, 18, and 18A of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and against accused appellant Mubarik Ali for the offence under Sections 120B and 153A and Sections 13, 18 and 18A of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and Sections 4/25 (1B)(b) of Arms Act, 1959, which prescribe a minimum sentence of five years, but which may extend to life imprisonment. Neither the cognizance order nor the charge order dated 19.10.2024 have been set-aside or modified by the appellate court, which prima-facie establishes the commission of alleged offence by the accused appellants. 17. So far as the arguments of learned counsel for the appellants that false allegations were levelled against the accused [2026:RJ-JP:10572-DB] (9 of 10) [CRLAD-49/2024] appellants that they being the member of PFI collected funds in the name of ‘Jakat’, recruited the youths, gave them physical and weapon training in order to achieve the object of PFI, organized the rally, raised inflammatory slogans etc., in our considered opinion, they can be adjudicated after taking evidence and at this stage it would not be appropriate to comment upon merit of them. 18. Although in the present case, out of 173 witnesses, statement of 13 witnesses have been recorded, but from the material on record, it prima-facie reveals that the defence counsel filed multiple applications and took adjournments many times on one pretext or the other. Further, in the present case, statements of protected witnesses and material witnesses are yet to be recorded. Hence, probability of tempering the evidence of protected witnesses and material witnesses cannot be denied at this stage. 19. Thus, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the gravity and nature of allegations, recovery of incriminating materials from the appellants, police statement of protected witnesses, and also the fact that the charges have been framed against the accused appellants for the offences under IPC and Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, for which the punishment is ranging from 5 years to life imprisonment, and the fact that protected witnesses and material witnesses are yet to be examined, we are not inclined to grant bail to the accused appellants. However, the learned trial court is [2026:RJ-JP:10572-DB] (10 of 10) [CRLAD-49/2024] requested to record the statements of protected witnesses and material witnesses on priority basis. 20. The appeals filed by the appellants are accordingly dismissed. (BHUWAN GOYAL),J (INDERJEET SINGH),J D/2-4