LexStreak
Read free →
Madras High Court· 07 September 2026

Does enabling proclaimed offenders to stay and concealing their true identities amount to harbouring under Section 19 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act?

M.Mohammed Ali Jinnah v. Union of india Rep by its
CRL A.865/2025 · 2026:MHC:3757 · CRL A No. 865 of 2025
Coram: Justice Anita Sumanth · Justice Sunder Mohan
🔖 Save this judgment🔔 Follow s.19 Unlawful Activities (Preven…📬 Get today's judgments
View the original judgment PDFFree to read. To download it — or the LexStreak typeset copy with the headnote and Points of Law — create an account; downloads are part of the Pro plan.
Answer

Enabling proclaimed offenders to stay and concealing their true identities prima facie amounts to harbouring under Section 19.

Yes. Enabling proclaimed offenders to stay and concealing their true identities prima facie amounts to harbouring under Section 19. The appellant knew the proclaimed offenders well, enabled their stay in the forest ranges and in the cottage, camouflaged their true identities from the guests and enabled their phone connections. (¶45)

Headnote

Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 — ss.19, 43D(5) — Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s.212 — Constitution of India — Art.21 — Bail — Harbouring — Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 — s.19 — Harbouring — Shelter and concealment of identity — Held: Knowingly enabling proclaimed offenders to stay, camouflaging their true identities and arranging their phone connections prima facie amounts to harbouring. (¶45) Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 — s.19 — Persons not named in the Schedule — Charge not premature — Held further: That the persons harboured are still under trial and are not named in the Schedule does not defeat the charge, since that would defeat the purpose of s.43D(5). (¶46, 47) Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 — s.43D(5) — Constitution of India — Art.21 — Bail — Three parameters pending reference — Held further: Pending the reference, bail rests on the role prima facie attributed, the period of incarceration and the tempo of trial, read with Art.21. (¶33) Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 — s.43D(5) — Length of incarceration — No minimum yardstick — Held further: The length of the period served is one factor only and no minimum period is a yardstick. Appeal dismissed. (¶49, 53)

Headnote

You've used your free headnotes this month

The answer above and the Court's own paragraphs stay free. LexStreak's full headnote on this judgment needs an account — a free one opens it again.

Create my free account
In the Court's own words
Paragraph 45What emanates from a reading of the depositions, including the unredacted testimony, is that the appellant not only knew the POs well, but had also enabled their stay in two locations, the forest ranges and the cottage. As far as the cottage is concerned, the appellant appears to have camouflaged their true identities from the guests and enabled their phone connections. Earlier, they had been taken to stay in the forest ranges, accommodation made ready for them, and steps taken by the appellant to protect them and facilitate their stay away from public gaze. In our view, this, prima facie, amounts to harbouring.
Acts & Sections
s.19 Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967s.43D(5) Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967s.212 Indian Penal Code, 1860Art.21 Constitution of India

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of M.Mohammed Ali Jinnah v. Union of india Rep by its — and get the Madras High Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Create my free account

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India

Open the full judgment →

Also decided in this judgment
Does Section 19 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act apply although the persons harboured are still under trial and are not named in the Schedule?Is a decision on bail under Section 43D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act governed by the role prima facie attributed, the period of incarceration and the tempo of trial?Is the length of incarceration one factor only, with no minimum period serving as a yardstick for granting bail?
Plain-language answer prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk — verify against the judgment. Source: Madras High Court. Corrections