UAPA Case: Delhi High Court denies bail to former PFI Chairman E Abubacker
On May 28, 2024, the Delhi High Court was hearing an appeal filed by former chairman of PFI (Popular Front of India) E Abubacker seeking bail, in the UAPA (Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act) case, on the merits as well as medical grounds. The bench constituting Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Manoj Jain dismissed the appeal, denying him bail. During a massive crackdown on the PFI in 2022, E Abubacker was arrested by the NIA (National Investigation Agency) and is currently in judicial custody. The HC observed that “...in view of the material collected by the investigating agency and the statements of witnesses recorded during the investigation, it cannot be said that the allegations were merely to the extent of ideological propagation of the activities of PFI. It was certainly much more than that.” It also said, “Though, PFI has been declared to be ‘unlawful association’ but at the same time, the activities of such unlawful association need to be cautiously fathomed and weighed up.”
During the proceedings, Senior Advocate Nitya Ramakrishna appeared for Abubacker and contended that there was no material to support the NIA’s case against him under the UAPA. He added that the appellant is over 70 years old and a cancer survivor battling Parkinson’s disease. The bench observed, “We do understand that Parkinson’s disease is a progressive disorder which gradually affects the nervous system but the fact remains that adequate directions have already been given by the learned Trial Court in the impugned order and as per jail report, appellant, himself, is not interested in getting admitted in AIIMS, New Delhi. Needless to emphasize, AIIMS is one of the best and most sought-after medical facilities in the country.”
After hearing the matter, the HC bench concluded, “The allegations and averments appearing in charge-sheet coupled with the statements made by the witnesses, including the protected witnesses, the tone and tenor of the speeches made by the appellant, the fact that appellant was earlier closely associated with SIMI and when it was banned, he switched to PFI; the manner in which he has been sanctioning amount from PFI bank account and the overall impact of the material so collected by the investigating agency; leave no element of uncertainty in our minds about the fact that the case of the prosecution, with respect to the commission of offences falling under Chapter-IV and Chapter-VI of UAPA, is prima facie true.” Therefore, the bench dismissed the appeal and said that the Trial Court would adjudicate on charges without getting swayed by the observations.
