Back
2019 Supreme(Mad) 1065
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. ANAND VENKATESH, J.
Abdulla @ Abdul Muthalif @ Mannadi Abdullah - Appellant
Versus
State, Rep. by The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Ambattur Estate Police Station, Chennai - Respondent
Crl. OP. No. 13809 of 2019
Decided On : 14-06-2019
For the Petitioner:R. Sankarasubbu, Advocate.
For the Respondent: M. Mohamed Riyaz, Additional Public Prosecutor.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need to balance individual liberty with the safety and protection of the community and the nation, particularly in cases involving offences under the Unlawful Activities [Prevention] Act, 1967, and the guidelines for granting bail to undertrials as established by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
Headnote:
Bail - Offence under Unlawful Activities [Prevention] Act, 1967 - Section 341, 307, 302, 16(1)(a), 17, 18 & 20 of UAPA - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the provisions of the Unlawful Activities [Prevention] Act, 1967, particularly focusing on the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the guidelines for granting bail to undertrials. The court also referred to the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shaheen Welfare Association and Kadra Pehadiya and Others, emphasizing the need to balance individual liberty with the safety and protection of the community and the nation.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought bail in connection with a case involving offences under the Unlawful Activities [Prevention] Act, 1967. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner was involved in an assault and invoked the provisions of UAPA based on the materials collected during the investigation. The petitioner contended that he was added as an accused based on a statement from a witness and had suffered incarceration for over 4 1/2 years.
Finding of the Court:
The court considered the petitioner's previous bail petition and dismissed it, taking into account the petitioner's antecedents. The court, in the present petition, acknowledged the change in circumstances and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, ultimately granting bail to the petitioner.
Issues: The issues involved the petitioner's alleged involvement in the offence under UAPA, the change in circumstances since the previous bail petition, and the violation of the petitioner's right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21, the need to balance individual liberty with the safety and protection of the community and the nation, and the guidelines for granting bail to undertrials as established by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
Final Decision: The court granted bail to the petitioner, subject to specific conditions, considering the petitioner's prolonged incarceration, the change in circumstances, and the need to afford the petitioner a fair opportunity to defend himself in the trial.
(Prayer : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. to enlarge the petitioner on bail, in connection with S.C.No.1 of 2015, pending trial on the file of Special Court/Principal Sessions Judge, Thiruvallur.)
1. The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 18.06.2014, for an offence u/s 341, 307, 302 and Section 16(1)(a) 17, 18 & 20 of Unlawful Activities [Prevention] Act, 1967, in Crime No.746 of 2014, on the file of the respondent Police seeks bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the brother of the de facto complainant was assaulted by three unknown persons with knives on his head, face and neck. The accused persons also caused injuries to one Ravikumar, who runs a Juice Shop. An FIR was registered by the T-2 Ambattur Estate Police Station in Cr.No.746 of 2014. Initially the offences under IPC was incorporated in the FIR and subsequently the provisions of the unlawful Activities [Prevention] Act, 1967 was also invoked on the basis of the materials collected in the course of investigation. The investigation was completed and a Final Report was also filed before the Principal District and Sessions Court, Thiruvallur and the same was taken on file in S.C.No.01 /2015.
3. The case was subsequently transferred to the Special Court under the National Investigation Agency Act and it was assigned with C.C.No.1/2016 and charges were also framed on 20.04.2017. This Court has also passed an order in Crl.O.P.No.6861/2016, directing the trial Court to proceed with the case on a day to day basis. There are totally 17 accused persons in this case and the present petitioner has been added as A-16.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the name of this petitioner was not found in the FIR. In the course of investigation, the name of this petitioner was added and he was ranked as A-16 and he was shown as an absconding accused in the Final Report. The learned counsel further submitted that this petitioner has been made as an accused person only based on the statement recorded by the Investigating Officer from one Nithyananda Kumar @ Mohamed Beran [LW-67]. The learned counsel submitted that even if the statement of LW-67 is taken as it is, he merely states that this petitioner used to attend the meetings conducted by Muslim Oringinaippu Peravai. It is the further submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was arrested by showing him as an absconding accused, even without serving any summons to the petitioner. It was submitted that the co accused has been released on bail by this Court and the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for more than 4 1/2 years and the petitioner must be afforded with an opportunity to prepare himself to defend in trial.
5. This Court considered the earlier bail petition filed by this petitioner and dismissed the same by an order dated 25.04.2019, made in Crl.O.P.No.10420 of 2019.
6. This Court dismissed the bail petition after taking into consideration, the previous antecedents of this petitioner.
7. Mr. R. Sankarasubbu, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that there are change in circumstances after dismissal of the earlier bail petition, and this Court while passing the earlier order did not take into consideration certain material facts and also the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shaheen Welfare Association. Vs. Union of India and Others reported in 1996 SCC (Crl) 366.
8. While substantiating his arguments, the learned counsel submitted that there is absolutely no material against the petitioner in this case except the statement of one Nithyananda Kumar, who has merely stated that the petitioner used to attend the meetings conducted by Muslim Oringinaippu Peravai.
9. The learned counsel further submitted that the earlier conviction that was taken into consideration by this Court in S.C.No.342 of 2002, was not properly appreciated by this Court since this Court ha
