Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., K.V. JAYAKUMAR
Muhammed Bilal S/o Hakkeem – Appellant
Versus
Union of India, Rep. by Superintendent of Police, Kochi – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appeals filed under nia act. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. detailed allegations against pfi. (Para 4) |
| 3. arguments from appellants against nia claims. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. nia's assertions supporting prosecution's case. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 5. court analysis of bail provisions. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 6. arguments on pre-trial detention duration. (Para 22 , 23 , 25 , 26) |
| 7. observations on trial proceedings context. (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33) |
| 8. court's final order on bail. (Para 34 , 35) |
JUDGMENT :
K.V. Jayakumar, J.
1. These Criminal Appeals have been preferred under Section 21 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008.
2. Crl. Appeal No. 1248/2025 is preferred by the accused Nos. 22 and 24 and Crl. Appeal No. 1253/2025 is preferred by accused Nos. 23 and 60 impugning the orders passed by the Special Court for the Trial of NIA Cases, Ernakulam, in Crl. M.P. No. 229/2025 and Crl.M.P.No. 230/2025 in S.C.No.02/2023/NIA dated 11.06.2025.
3. In the above cases, 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,
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.
Prolonged pre-trial detention without trial may necessitate bail, especially when trial completion is unlikely, balancing the severity of allegations with the accused's rights under Article 21.
Prolonged pre-trial detention without trial completion justifies bail, emphasizing constitutional rights over statutory restrictions.
(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.
The denial of bail based on serious allegations, abscondence, and the need for judicial discretion to maintain public order governs the principle of parity in bail applications.
The requirement to communicate the grounds of arrest in writing is mandatory under Article 22(1) of the Constitution, and failure to do so renders the arrest illegal.
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....
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
