The Delhi High Court on Monday has issued a notice to the National Investigation Agency regarding the bail application of Ibrahim Puthanathani, the former national coordinator of the Popular Front of India.
Puthanathani has been in custody for 2 years, following his arrest in 2022.
The division bench, comprising Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Amit Sharma, requested a response from the NIA within two weeks. The next hearing is scheduled for November 11.
During the proceedings, advocate Kartik Venu, representing Puthanathani, appeared via video conference. He highlighted that his client has been in custody for an extended period and noted that an earlier bail application had been denied by the trial court at Patiala House in New Delhi.
Puthanathani’s detention stems from allegations of his involvement in a terror case, with charges filed under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) in April 2022.
The NIA’s case alleges that Puthanathani and other PFI leaders conspired to raise funds for terrorist activities and were reportedly involved in operating terror camps.
Following the central government’s decision to ban the PFI under UAPA on September 28, 2022, the NIA conducted a nationwide crackdown, resulting in the arrest of several PFI leaders.
In June 2023, Puthanathani was granted a brief custody parole of six hours. However, the significant time spent in detention has raised concerns about the duration and conditions of his custody, prompting his legal team to seek bail once more.
The outcome of this bail application will be closely monitored, given the ongoing scrutiny of organizations labeled as terrorist entities by the government. As the legal proceedings unfold, they will likely have implications for the PFI and its members, as well as broader discussions about civil liberties and anti-terrorism laws in India.
With the next hearing approaching, the NIA’s response will be pivotal in determining whether Puthanathani will be granted bail or remain in custody while awaiting trial. The court’s decision will not only affect the individual case of Puthanathani but could also influence the legal landscape surrounding similar cases in the future.
