IMPORTANT POINT
Prolonged detention without trial infringes the right to life and liberty, allowing for bail despite statutory restrictions under UAPA.

JUDGMENT :

P.B.Suresh Kumar, J.

This appeal is preferred invoking Section 21 of the National Investigation Agency Act , 2008 challenging an order passed by the Special Court for Trial of NIA Cases, Ernakulam (the Special Court) dismissing an application for bail submitted by the appellant who is the first accused in SC No.02/21/NIA/KOC.

2. The case was one originally registered by Edakkara Police based on the disclosure made by the appellant during the investigation pursuant to his arrest in connection with another crime. The disclosure made by the appellant was that he and others had organized a training camp during September 2016 in Karulai forest with arms, including automatic rifles for furthering the activities of the proscribed terrorist organization, CPI (Maoist), with a view to wage war against the Government of India. The case was later transferred to the Anti Terrorist Squad of the State Government and whilst so, the National Investigation Agency (NIA) took over the investigation and concluded the same by submitting the final report. The offences alleged against the appellant are offences punishable under Sections 120B, 121 , 121A and 122 of Indian Penal Code ( IPC ), Section 27 (1)(e)(iv) of the Kerala Forest Act , 1961, Section 7 read with Section 27 (2) of the Arms Act and Sections 18, 18A, 20, 38 and 39 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act ( UAPA ).

3. The appellant was arrested in connection with the case as early as on 17.10.2017 by Edakkara Police and he is in custody ever since his arrest. The application submitted by the appellant for bail was dismissed by the Special Court placing reliance on Section 43D(5) of the UAPA Act which provides that no person accused of an offence punishable under Chapters IV and VI of the UAPA Act shall, if in custody, be released on bail if the court, on a perusal of the case diary or the report made under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is of the opinion that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against such person is prima facie true.

4. A written objection has been filed by the NIA in the appeal contending, among others, that the case involves serious offences directly relating to anti-national activities, which require extensive judicial scrutiny; that while the right to a speedy trial is essential, it cannot supersede public safety and national security when the accused concerned are involved in terrorism related activities and that Section 43D(5) of the UAPA bars the court from granting bail to such accused. It was also contended in the objection that the appellant is accused in 19 other cases across multiple States and that his involvement in armed training camps, conspiracy, and other unlawful activities has been conclusively established through multiple forms of evidence collected by the Investigating Agency. The relevant passages in the objection dealing with the evidence collected against the appellant read thus:

“A. Oral Evidence: Statements of witnesses CW-1, 2, 3, 11, 48, 49, 50, 66, 97, 117, and approver Shobha (A-20), confirms his role as an armed cadre of CPI (Maoist). The statement of Shobha (A-20) recorded u/s 164 of CrPC (D No-276) and 161 of CrPC proves the crime and the physical and arms training camp conducted by CPI (Maoist) in the deep reserve forest of Nilambur. It also establishes the participation of A-1 to A-28 in the said training camp during the period from May 2016 to September 2016 and the use of arms for training.

a. The statement of CW-11 confirms the presence of the accused in the video of physical/arms training of CPI (Maoist), which was found in the seized digital devices of accused in Crime No. 536/2016 and analyzed by him.

b. The statements of residents of Mundakadavu colony proving the scene of crime, and the statements of residents of Pulimunda colony identifying A-1 as an armed cadre of CPI (Maoist) and confirming his presence in the video and Protected Witness- S and T.

c. The statements of relati