Delhi High Court refuses interim bail to jailed PFI leader for Haj family meeting

The Delhi High Court has rejected a plea seeking interim bail for jailed Popular Front of India (PFI) leader Anis Ahmed, who had requested temporary release to meet his family members before they departed for the Haj pilgrimage.

A bench comprising Justices Prathiba M Singh and Madhu Jain observed that while the Haj pilgrimage holds deep religious significance, it cannot by itself be considered a valid ground for granting interim bail in a case under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).

The court noted that Ahmed had sought six days of interim bail, arguing that it was customary for family members to meet and seek blessings before undertaking the pilgrimage.

However, the bench rejected the plea, stating that the mere travel of family members for Haj does not justify temporary release from custody.

In its order dated May 5, the court further observed that granting interim bail would involve Ahmed’s travel from Delhi to Bengaluru, which could raise security concerns at airports.

The court also took into account allegations against Ahmed, including his role as a national-level office bearer of the PFI and his involvement in overseeing administrative activities across the country, as stated in the charge sheet.

According to the observations recorded, Ahmed has been accused of involvement in radicalisation activities, recruitment efforts, and providing training, as part of the organisation’s alleged unlawful operations.

The National Investigation Agency (NIA) opposed the bail plea, arguing that Ahmed was a senior member of a banned organisation and that his release could lead to potential disturbances.

The agency further stated that the PFI had been involved in a criminal conspiracy to raise funds for terror-related activities and conduct training programmes for its members.

The PFI was banned by the Government of India in September 2022 under the UAPA for alleged links with extremist organisations and involvement in unlawful activities.

The court ultimately dismissed the appeal, stating that there was no sufficient ground to grant interim bail in the present case.