SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Ker) 2343

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Raja Vijayaraghavan V, K. V. Jayakumar, JJ.
Shafeer C. - Petitioner
Versus
Union Of India, Represented By Inspector Of Police – Respondent
CRL.A NO. 765 OF 2025
Decided On : 28-07-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Shri.E.A.Haris, Shri.M.A.Ahammad Saheer, Sri.Muhammed Yasil, Smt.Aagi Johny
For the Respondent: O.M.Shalina, Deputy Solicitor General Of India

The court upheld the denial of bail to an accused charged with harboring a terrorist, emphasizing the severity of the allegations and the necessity of ensuring justice and public safety.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Section 212 - Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 - Section 19 - Criminal appeal against bail rejection - Appellant accused of harbouring prime accused in a terrorist act - The court found sufficient evidence of the appellant's involvement in facilitating the absconding accused's shelter and employment - The nature and gravity of the charges, along with the appellant's criminal antecedents, justified the refusal of bail. (Paras 4, 11, 34)

(B) Bail - The court emphasized the principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, and that prolonged detention without trial may violate constitutional rights. (Paras 20-26)

Facts of the case:
The appellant is accused of providing shelter and support to the prime accused in the brutal attack on Prof. T. J. Joseph, involving a conspiracy among PFI members. He was arrested after a lengthy investigation and charged under serious offences.

Findings of Court:
The court upheld the Special Court's decision, noting the gravity of the accusations and the appellant's involvement in other serious crimes.

Issues: The main issues included the nature of the appellant's involvement in the alleged terrorist act and the implications of his prior criminal history on bail considerations.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the evidence presented established a prima facie case against the appellant, justifying the denial of bail based on the severity of the charges and the risk of tampering with evidence.

Result: The Criminal Appeal stands dismissed.

Table of Content
1. prosecution case details against the appellant. (Para 2 , 4 , 5)
2. appellant's arguments against the bail rejection. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
3. court's analysis of bail considerations. (Para 19 , 21 , 23)
4. constitutional rights and bail principles. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28)
5. final ruling on the bail application. (Para 34)

JUDGMENT :

K. V. Jayakumar, J.

This criminal appeal is preferred impugning the order of the Special Court for the trial of NIA cases, Ernakulam, in Crl. M. P. No.80/2025 in R.C.No.1/2011/NIA. The appellant herein is accused No.55 in R.C.No.1/2011. By the impugned order, the learned Special Judge dismissed the bail application filed by the appellant/accused No.55.

Prosecution Case

2. The prosecution case in brief is that, on 04.07.2010, PFI/SDPI activists attacked Prof. T. J. Joseph of Newman's College, Thodupuzha, Idukki District, and chopped off his right palm and threw it into a nearby compound as part of executing their vengeance.

3. The case was initially taken up for investigation by the Kerala Police.Later, the National Investigating Agency (NIA) took over the investigation and laid the charge sheet. The Special Court tried the case and convicted some of the accused persons. However, the first accused in the above case, Savad @ Savadh @ Shajahan, absconded. The case against him was split up and refiled as S.C.No.3/2023/NIA. Later, Savad @ Savadh, the prime accused, was arrested from Beram, Mattannur, Kannur on 10.01.2024.

4. Further investigation of the case revealed that the appellant was an active cadre of the Popular Front of India (PFI), Kannur District. In pursuance of a larger conspiracy among the accused, who are members of the PFI, the appellant wilfully arranged shelter and other logistical support for the first accused at Chakkad and Mattanur in Kannur District, from 2020 until his arrest on 10.01.2024. Therefore, the prosecution alleges that the appellant has committed offences punishable under Sections 212 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code , and Section 19 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (for the sake of brevity, 'the UA(P) Act')."

5. The appellant was arrested on 23.08.2024. After the completion of further investigation, the NIA filed a supplementary charge sheet on 17.02.2025 against him. The specific allegation against accused No. 55, Shafeer, is that he had provided shelter to the first accused for about two years and also facilitated the meetings of accused No.1 with his parents and siblings.

The Charge

6. Shafeer C., Accused No. 55, is a known SDPI/PFI cadre from Kannur District and has criminal antecedents related to his involvement in PFI-related cases in the same district. He voluntarily harboured Savad @ Savadh @ Shajahan (Accused No. 1), knowing that the said accused had committed a terrorist act. With the intention of screening Savad @ Savadh, an absconding accused, from arrest, legal proceedings, and punishment, the appellant arranged shelter for him in a rented house owned by one Kunjimoosa at Chakkad, Kannur District, wherein Savad resided in a pseudonym as 'Shajahan' from 2020 to 2022.

7. He has also arranged shelter in a rented house owned by one Khadeeja at Mattannur, Kannur, from 17.12.2022 onwards. During that period, Accused No. 55, Shafeer, arranged a job for Savad @ Savadh as a carpenter at a shop in Narayanpara, Kannur District, and frequently visited him at both his residence and workplace. During 2021 and 2022, the appellant also arranged meetings between Savad @ Savadh and his parents and siblings near a mosque and crematorium in Koratty, Thrissur District, Kerala.

Submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant

8. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the order of the Special Court rejecting bail is legally unsustainable. The appellant was arrested on 23.08.2024. The learned counsel further submitted that there is nothing in the supplementary charge sheet to prima facie attract the offence under Section 19 of th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top