The Madhya Pradesh High Court has declined to interfere with a lower court's decision denying bail to an advocate accused of promoting communal disharmony and attempting to revive a "Mughal Order" through his activities.

A division bench comprising Justice Vivek Agarwal and Justice Devnarayan Mishra dismissed the appeal filed by the lawyer under Section 21 of the National Investigation Agency (NIA) Act, 2008, challenging the rejection of his regular bail by the Special NIA Court.

The appellant, an enrolled advocate associated with a human rights organization, had contended that he was merely conducting legal awareness programs and had not committed any acts that could be classified as unlawful under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).

However, the High Court, after perusing the case material, noted that the seizure memo reflected the recovery of incriminating items such as books, CDs, computer equipment, a pen drive, bank account details, pamphlets, and written lectures from the appellant’s residence and office. The Court stated:

“Prima facie, these materials indicate an attempt to disrupt communal harmony in society with the objective of establishing a Mughal Order as it existed before British colonial rule.”

The lawyer has been booked under multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code, including Section 121-A (conspiracy to wage war), 153-A (promoting enmity between groups), 120-B (criminal conspiracy), and 201 (causing disappearance of evidence), along with several provisions of the UAPA such as Sections 13(1)(b), 18, 18-A, and 18-B, which pertain to advocating unlawful activity, conspiracy, organizing terrorist camps, and recruitment for terrorist acts.

Challenging the bail rejection, the appellant’s counsel, Advocate Mohd. Tahir, argued that his client’s actions did not fall under the definitions of “unlawful activity” or “terrorist act” as per UAPA. He further contended that the seizure memo was invalid as the appellant was already in jail at the time and not present during the seizure.

Rejecting these arguments, the High Court held that the case merits full trial consideration and that, at this stage, there is no ground to grant bail. The bench observed:

“It is for the trial court to evaluate the evidence and decide whether the charges can be proved. At this juncture, we find no compelling reason for the High Court’s intervention before trial completion.”

While refraining from commenting on the merits of the case, the bench emphasized that the bail application was "not matured" and any observations made in the order would not prejudice the fairness of the trial.

The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

Case Title: Wasid Khan v. State of Madhya Pradesh, Criminal Appeal No. 2776 of 2025
Counsel for Appellant: Advocate Mohd. Tahir
Counsel for State: Advocate Brahmadatt Singh