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
| 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
Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra
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.
Prolonged incarceration without trial may violate constitutional rights, enabling courts to grant bail, highlighting the balance between individual liberty and the severity of charges.
The principle of parity in bail applications allows for equality among co-accused, emphasizing the right to a speedy trial and the unjust nature of prolonged incarceration without conviction.
Prolonged pre-trial detention violates the right to life and liberty; bail may be granted even for serious charges if trial delay is substantial.
Prolonged detention without trial infringes the right to life and liberty, allowing for bail despite statutory restrictions under UAPA.
Prolonged detention without trial can violate the right to a speedy trial, qualifying an accused for bail under Article 21, despite serious charges linking them to anti-national activities.
The right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is imperative, and prolonged incarceration without the likelihood of a timely trial may warrant the grant of bail.
Right to speedy trial enshrined in Article 21 prevails over statutory provisions restricting bail, especially when prolonged incarceration is evident.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.