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

2020 Supreme(Mad) 387

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
G.R. SWAMINATHAN, J.
Md Kameual Islam & Others - Appellant
Versus
The State, rep.by the Inspector of Police, Dindigul Town South Police Station, Dindigul & Others - Respondent
CRL OP(MD)Nos. 5769, 6018 & 6103 of 2020
Decided On : 12-06-2020

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners:M. Ajmal Khan, Senior Counsel, J. Sulthan Basha, A. Raja Mohamed, Advocates. For the Respondents:R1, A. Natarajan, State Public Prosecutor assisted by A. Robinson, Govt.Advocate (crl.side), R2, V. Kathirvelu, Assistant Solicitor General of India assisted by K. Prabhu, Advocate.

Headnote:

Constitution Of India, 1950 - Article 21 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - 437 – India Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 188, 269, 270, 271 and 278 - Foreigners Act, 1946 - Sections 13 and 14 - Epidemic Diseases Act 1897 - Section 3- Tamil nadu Public Health Act, 1939 - Section 58(4), 134, 135 - Disaster Management Act, 2005 - Section 51 - Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 - Section 43-D - Jurisdiction magistrates - Lock down regulations promulgated by Government - Petitioners were fully aware that Government had ordered closure of all places of worship they stayed in groups in various mosques without observing social distancing rules jurisdictional police registered FIRs against petitioners herein alleging that they had committed offences Sections and of Foreigners Act Sections of Epidemic Diseases Act Section Tamil nadu Public Health Act and Section of Disaster Management Act petitioners were arrested and remanded to judicial custody - While most of petitioners are lodged in Central Prison some of them are in Sub Jail – Held, Petitioners fortunately have not tested positive so far position may be different tomorrow - Lives of petitioners may be in danger - Times may be uncertain but rights have to be certain petitioners are willing to bear the cost of transportation - They will coordinate with their embassies and consulates and arrange their return - All that respondents need to do is to play a facilitatory role - Instead of doing so if respondents insist on detaining petitioners and prosecuting them it can only be characterized as unreasonable unjust and unfair - Hold that continuance of criminal prosecution against petitioners herein would certainly amount to an infraction of their fundamental right under Article of Constitution of India and directing their closure on appropriate terms alone would secure ends of justice - Petitioners have already suffered enough for their transgression of law and there is prevalence of medical emergency petitioners are having right to return to their native countries at earliest opportunity - Court not issuing any direction contrary to law - Court merely echoing what is already settled executive policy - Government of India vide mandated State Governments to keep watch on all persons who engage in religious activities in violation of tourist visa conditions and to deport them immediately – Petition allowed

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: For Bail in Crime No. 234 of 2020 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Dindigul Town South Police Station, Dindigul District.

For Bail in Crime No.188 of 2020 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Kenikkarai Police Station, Ramanathapuram District.

For Bail in Crime No.182 of 2020 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Adiramapattinam Police Station, Thanjavur District.)

Common Order

The run-up:

1. The petitioners are foreign nationals. They entered India on tourist visas. The respondent police arrested them on the ground that they had engaged in religious activities in breach of the visa conditions. They had also defied the lock down regulations promulgated by the Government in the wake of Covid-19 pandemic. Though the petitioners were fully aware that the Government had ordered closure of all places of worship, they stayed in groups in various mosques without observing the social distancing rules. Hence, the jurisdictional police registered FIRs against the petitioners herein alleging that they had committed offences under Sections 13 and 14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, Sections 188, 269, 270, 271 and 278 of IPC, Section 3 of Epidemic Diseases Act 1897, Section 58(4), 134, 135 of the Tamil nadu Public Health Act, 1939 and Section 51(b) of the Disaster Management Act, 2005. The petitioners were arrested and remanded to judicial custody. While most of the petitioners are lodged in Central Prison, Puzhal, some of them are in Sub Jail, Saidapet. They now seek bail.

Submissions made on behalf of the petitioners:

2. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are entitled to compulsive bail as the final reports have not been filed within the statutory period. He wanted me to take note of the facts and circumstances of the case in its entirety and render substantial justice by issuing appropriate directions.

Objections raised by the respondents:

3. The learned State Public Prosecutor submitted that as on date the case against the petitioners is pending at the FIR stage and that the investigation is still going on. He drew the attention of this Court to the orders passed by the Government designating the transit yard of the Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai as Special Camp to lodge the foreign nationals who have violated the visa conditions and committed the offences in question. Therefore, the petitioners on being granted bail will have to be shifted to the said special camp. They will have to necessarily stay there till the criminal prosecution is over or their deportation, whichever is earlier.

4. The learned Assistant Solicitor General of India appearing for the Central Government also adopted the submissions of the learned State Public Prosecutor. He drew my attention to the order dated 19.06.2019 made in Crl.RC Nos.468 & 469 of 2019 which also concerned foreign nationals and in which directions had been issued to ensure their presence for facing trial.

Facts beyond dispute:

5. The following facts are beyond the pale of controversy:

(a) The petitioners are foreign nationals and they had arrived in India only on tourist visas.

(b) It is not the case of the prosecution that the petitioners had indulged in proselytizing activities. Their acts have not prejudiced public tranquility.

(c) They have been in prison since 5th/9th April of 2020 and more than two months have elapsed.

(d) None of the petitioners tested positive for Covid-19 and there is absolutely nothing on record to indicate that they had contributed to the spread of the novel corona virus.

Consideration of the issues involved:

6. I have no doubt whatsoever in my mind that the petitioners are Tablighis even though this has not been expressly conceded. Tablighi Jamaat has come under severe and harsh criticism for its reckless and irresponsible conduct and rightly so. There are accusations that its puritanical and revivalist project prepares the ground for islamic radicalization. Of course, this narrative has been contested by

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

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