The main legal point established is the exclusive jurisdiction of Special Courts for trying UAP Act offences, the right to default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C, and the non-est nature of orders passed by the Magistrate.

JUDGMENT :

[N. Anand Venkatesh, J.]

(Criminal Appeal filed under Section 21(1) of the National Investigation Agency, Act, 2008, to set aside the order dated 16.11.2022 passed by the Additional District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Ambur, in Crl.M.P.No.4096 of 2022.)

1. This Criminal Appeal has been filed to set aside the order dated 16.11.2022 passed by the Additional District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Ambur, in Crl..M.P.No.4096 of 2022.

2. The minimum facts that are required to decide this criminal appeal are as under :

2.1. Based on a complaint given by one Thangavel, Special Sub-Inspector of Police, Ambur Town Police Station, a case in Ambur Town P.S. Crime No.193 of 2022 was registered on 30.07.2022 for the offences under Sections 121, 122 and 125 IPC and Sections 18, 18-A, 20, 38 and 39 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (in short “the UAP Act”) by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Ambur Sub-Division.

2.2. The complaint discloses that during discreet enquiries conducted by the special branch, an information was received that one Mir Anas Ali (appellant herein), S/o.Mir Hidayath Ali, had joined Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and was propagating its ideologies and policies actively in the social media. Therefore, the said Mir Anas Ali was arrested by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Ambur Sub-Division, on 30.07.2022, for the offences disclosed in the FIR and was produced before the learned Additional District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Ambur (for brevity “the Magistrate”) on 30.07.2022, who remanded him in judicial custody for 15 days.

2.3. The investigation was continued by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Ambur Sub-Division and it is reported that the appellant was being periodically produced before the Magistrate Court, every 15 days for extension of judicial remand. While that being so, the appellant filed a bail petition in Crl.M.P.No.2501 of 2022 in the Court of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Vellore (for brevity “the Sessions Judge”), which was dismissed on merits on 01.09.2022.

2.4. Thereafter, the appellant sent a representation from prison to the Court, stating that he does not have the means to engage an Advocate and prayed for his release on bail. Based on this representation that was forwarded to the District Legal Services Authority, a counsel by name Mr.N.Anbarasan (Enrolment No.4142/2012) was nominated to file a bail petition for the appellant. Accordingly, a second bail petition was filed in Crl.M.P.No.3295 of 2022, in which, after hearing both sides, the learned Sessions Judge, by order dated 15.10.2022, released the appellant on bail, without adverting to Section 43D of the UAP Act, treating this case as an another run-of-the-mill bail petition.

2.5. Realising the seriousness of the case, the prosecution filed a petition on 17.10.2022 in Crl.M.P.No.3427 of 2022 in Crl.M.P.No.3295 of 2022 to cancel the bail under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. in the Sessions Court. Since the prosecution had moved the petition for cancellation of bail, the sureties that were offered by the appellant were not accepted and therefore, he continued to be in incarceration.

2.6. After notice to the appellant, the learned Sessions Judge, allowed Crl.M.P.No.3427 of 2022 on 20.10.2022, by cancelling the bail that was granted to the appellant earlier in Crl.M.P.No.3295 of 2022 on 15.10.2022. The reasons given by the learned Sessions Judge in the cancellation order, is extracted hereunder:

“14) This Court had granted bail to the respondent/accused on two grounds.

(1) He is an engineering student, hails from a poor family and also considering his representation that he is not at all connected with any unlawful organisations, his detention is spoiling his career as a bright student.

(2) Except for oral arguments, the Prosecution has not filed any document to show the illegal activities.

15) But, now, the Prosecution has seriously opposed that the respondent/accused was secured band on confidentia