Back
2022 Supreme(Mad) 854
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S. VAIDYANATHAN, A.D. JAGADISH CHANDIRA, JJ.
Reena Joyce Mary – Appellant
Versus
State rep. by Deputy Superintendent of Police, Dharmapuri – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 652 of 2022
Decided on : 02-09-2022
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :R. Sankarasubbu, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Babu Muthumeeran, Additional Public Prosecutor.
The delay in trial and an undertaking to renounce terrorist ideology and allegiance to the Constitution of India can justify granting bail in cases involving terrorism charges.
Headnote:
Prevention of Terrorism Act - Bail - 3(2)(b), 3(3), 3(5), 4(b), 22(1) of POTA, 2002 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the appellant's long incarceration, delay in trial, and her undertaking to renounce her faith in Maoism and allegiance to the Constitution of India. The court referred to Shaheen Welfare Association vs. Union of India and others [1996 (2) SCC 616] and Satender Kumar Antil Vs. CBI & Another reported in (2022) SCC OnLine SC 825 to justify granting bail to the appellant.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a member of a Maoist group, was arrested and denied bail due to her absconding and involvement in terrorist activities. The appellant argued for bail based on her long incarceration, health issues, and renunciation of Maoist ideology.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the delay in trial and the appellant's undertaking to renounce Maoism and allegiance to the Constitution of India justified granting bail.
Issues: The issues revolved around the appellant's involvement in terrorist activities, her long incarceration, and the delay in trial.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the appellant's undertaking to renounce Maoism and allegiance to the Constitution of India, as well as the delay in trial, as justified by legal precedents.
Final Decision: The Criminal Appeal was allowed, and the appellant was granted bail with stringent conditions.
JUDGMENT :
S. VAIDYANATHAN, A.D. JAGADISH CHANDIRA, JJ.
(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 34 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002 to set aside the order dated 31.10.2019 in Crl.M.P.No.313 of 2019 in Spl.C.C.No.5 of 2003 on the file of the Special Court under the Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA), 2002 (Sessions Court for Exclusive Trial of Bomb Blast Cases), Poonamallee, Chennai, Poonamallee, Chennai and enlarge the appellant on bail.)
The Criminal Appeal has been filed seeking to set aside the order dated 31.10.2019 in Crl.M.P.No.313 of 2019 in Spl.C.C.No.5 of 2003 on the file of the Special Court under the Prevention of Terrorism Act, Poonamallee, Chennai and enlarge the appellant on bail.
2. The appellant is arrayed as A28 in Spl.C.C.No.5 of 2003. She has filed the present Criminal Appeal against denial of bail by the Special Court.
3. Brief facts behind the filing of the present Criminal Appeal is are as under:-
i) On receipt of some information on 23.11.2002, the Inspector of Police, heading a team of Naxalite Special Duty Wing, Dharmapuri District had conducted search at various places on different dates and after conducting enquiry, seizure of materials like explosive substances and exchange of fire between, a set of people were arrested identifying as Maoist and as a consequence, cases were registered in Crime Nos.1004/02,1005/02, 1006/02 on the file of Uthangarai Police Station and Crime No.434/02 on the file of Kallavi Police Station.
ii) In all the above cases, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, C.I.D. Branch, Coimbatore, took up investigation and filed charge sheet under Sections 148, 333, 307, 333 read with 149 IPC and 120B read with 3(2)(b), 3(3), 3(5), 4(b) and 22(1) of the Prevention Of Terrorism Act, 2002, and Section 25(1B)(a)of the Arms Act,1959 and ultimately, the case was taken on file in Spl.C.C.No.5 of 2003.
iii) The appellant, being one among the accused persons, having failed in the previous attempts to get bail from the Special Court, filed Criminal Appeal No.1909 of 2003 before this court and obtained bail by order dated 28.4.2005 and accordingly, she was released on bail on 5.5.2005.
iv) Subsequently, the appellant had violated the bail conditions by her non appearance before the court after 16.11.2007. NBW came to be issued against her on 23.3.2009 and on vigorous search by various special teams, the appellant was arrested on 21.7.2016 by the Kancheepuram Q Branch Police in Crime No.1 of 2016 and she was produced before the Special Court on 30.8.2016 under P.T. Warrant and remanded to judicial custody. Bail Cancellation petition in Crl.M.P.No.3632 of 2016 in Criminal Appeal No.335 of 2004 filed by the prosecution before this court also came to be allowed on 23.1.2017.
v) Thereafter, the appellant had filed petition seeking bail in Crl.M.P.No.313 of 2019 in Spl.C.C.No.5 of 2003, which was dismissed by the Special Court. Aggrieved against the same, the present Criminal Appeal has been filed by the appellant.
4. Learned counsel Mr.R.Sankarasubbu appearing for the appellant would submit that the Special Court has erred in dismissing the bail petition mechanically by holding that the bail petition of a co-accused by name Chandra was dismissed and also without considering the fact that there is no iota of evidence to detain the appellant and without considering the relevant circumstances for grant of bail. He would further submit that the appellant is a woman social worker fighting for the cause of poor, downtrodden and neglected persons and she has been victimized. He would also submit that the appellant had been in incarceration for more than six years viz., from 21.7.2016 and the trial of the case is not likely to be concluded in the near future, and the reason which is also not attributable to the appellant. He would further submit that the appellant had not been produced before the Speci
