Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., P. V. BALAKRISHNAN, J.
Nassar S/o. Mammy, Kallivalappil House, Kumarikayattam, Keezhayur – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Raja Vijayaraghavan, J.
1. These Criminal Appeals have been preferred under Section 21 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008.
2. Crl. Appeal No. 225 of 2025 is preferred by the accused Nos. 25, 27, 31 and 32, Crl. Appeal No. 228 of 2025 is preferred by the accused No. 33 and Crl. Appeal No. 242 of 2025 is preferred by the accused Nos. 29, 30 and 51 in S.C.No.2/2023/NIA on the file of the Special Court for Trial of NIA Cases, Ernakulam.
3. In the above case, they, along with the rest of the accused, stand indicted for having committed offences punishable under sections 120B, 34, 109, 115, 118, 119, 143, 144, 147, 148, 449, 153A, 341, 302, 201, 212 r/w.s. 149, 120B r/w.s. 302 of IPC, Section 3(a)(b)(d) r/w. Section 7 of the Religious Institutions (Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1988 and Sections 13, 16, 18, 18A, 18B, 20, 22C, 23, 38 & 39 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and Section 25 (1) (a) of the Arms Act, 1959.
4. By the order passed by the learned Special Court, the applications for bail preferred by the appellants were dismissed.
5. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
5.1. The Central Government received credible and actionable intelligence indicat
Prolonged pre-trial detention without trial completion justifies bail, emphasizing constitutional rights over statutory restrictions.
The court may grant bail despite statutory restrictions under the UAPA if the accused's right to a speedy trial under Article 21 is infringed due to prolonged detention without reasonable trial prosp....
The court emphasized that constitutional rights to liberty prevail when trials are unduly prolonged, allowing bail despite serious terrorism charges.
(1) Bail application – Question of grant of bail concern both liberty of individuals undergoing criminal prosecution as well as interest of criminal justice system in ensuring that those who commit c....
(1) Grant of bail – Question of discarding material or document at stage of considering bail application of accused on the ground of being not reliable or inadmissible in evidence, is not permissible....
The court emphasized that in terrorism-related cases, the gravity of charges and evidence against the accused necessitate denial of bail under Section 43D(5) of the UA(P) Act.
Bail cannot be granted for offences under Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 unless Court comes to conclusion that there is no prima facie case against accused.
The court reaffirmed that anticipatory bail is not maintainable under Section 43D(4) of the UAPA in cases involving serious charges of terrorism, emphasizing the need for custodial interrogation in s....
Prolonged detention without trial violates constitutional rights, necessitating bail when evidence of participation in unlawful activities is insufficient.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
