Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.N. PRAKASH, A.A. NAKKIRAN, JJ.
Suresh Rajan - Appellant
Versus
The State, Represented by the Inspector of Police, National Investigation Agency, Chennai - Respondent
Crl.A. No. 157 of 2022
Decided On : 22-04-2022
National Investigation Agency Act - Bail Application - Sections 120-B, 124-A, 201, 505(1)(b) IPC and Sections 13(1)(b), 38 and 39 of the UAP Act - The court granted bail to the appellant with specific conditions to affirm allegiance to the Indian Constitution and disavow violence and Maoist ideology.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, Suresh Rajan, filed a bail application after being arrested by the National Investigation Agency for offenses under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. The NIA opposed the bail citing the appellant's alleged involvement with a banned outfit.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant's involvement with the banned outfit was not substantiated and granted bail with specific conditions to affirm allegiance to the Indian Constitution and disavow violence and Maoist ideology.
Issues: The main issue was whether the appellant should be granted bail considering the allegations against him and the opposition from the NIA.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the appellant's alleged involvement with the banned outfit, the nature of the offenses, and the potential risk of involvement in subversive activities if granted bail. The court also emphasized the importance of affirming allegiance to the Indian Constitution and disavowing violence and Maoist ideology as conditions for granting bail.
Final Decision: The court granted bail to the appellant with specific conditions to affirm allegiance to the Indian Constitution and disavow violence and Maoist ideology.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 21 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, seeking to set aside the order dated 10.01.2022 passed in Crl.M.P. No.332 of 2021 in C.C. No.3 of 2021 on the file of the Special Court under the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (Sessions Court for Exclusive Trial of Bomb Blast Cases), Chennai, at Poonamallee.)
P.N. Prakash, J.
1. This criminal appeal has been preferred seeking to set aside the order dated 10.01.2022 passed in Crl.M.P. No.332 of 2021 in C.C. No.3 of 2021 on the file of the Special Court under the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (Sessions Court for Exclusive Trial of Bomb Blast Cases), Chennai, at Poonamallee (for brevity “the Special Court”).
2. The facts in a nutshell leading to this criminal appeal are as under:
2.1 One Vivek @ Vivekanandan (A.1) has a Facebook account entitled “Thozhar Vivek”. On 15.08.2020, being our Independence Day, he posted a message in his Facebook account in Tamil, the free English translation of which reads as under:
“The change of regime that happened in 1947 is a sham because it has not got rid of feudalism, imperialism and exploitation of the poor and therefore, August 15th is a farce independence. In order to gain real independence, let us mobilise in the path of war shown by Naxalbari.”
2.2 Noticing this post, a case in D-1 Tallakulam P.S. Cr.No.1916 of 2020 was registered on 01.09.2020 for the offences under Section 13(1)(b) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (for brevity "the UAP Act") and Section 505(1)(b) IPC by the State police and Vivek (A.1) was arrested on 16.12.2020.
2.3 Based on the orders dated 12.03.2021 passed by the Central Government, the case in D-1 Tallakulam P.S. Cr.No.1916 of 2020 was transferred to the file of the National Investigation Agency (for brevity "the NIA") and re-registered as RC-07/2021/NIA/DLI dated 14.03.2021.
2.4 The NIA took up the investigation of the case and arrested Suresh Rajan (A.2), the appellant herein, on 08.06.2021 and remanded him in judicial custody.
2.5 Meanwhile, bail was granted to Vivek (A.1) by the Special Court on 05.05.2021 on the ground that the charge sheet was not filed within 90 days of his arrest, viz., on or before 15.03.2021. The appeal preferred by the NIA thereagainst was dismissed by this Court on 28.06.2021.
2.6 The NIA completed the investigation and filed a final report on 11.06.2021 in C.C. No.3 of 2021 in the Special Court for the offences under Sections 120-B, 124-A, 201 and 505(1)(b) IPC and Sections 13(1)(b), 38 and 39 of the UAP Act against Vivek (A.1) and Suresh Rajan (A.2) and an advocate by name Mohan (A.3).
2.7 While so, Suresh Rajan (A.2) preferred a bail application in Crl.M.P. No.332 of 2021 in C.C. No.3 of 2021 which has been dismissed by the Special Court on 10.01.2022, aggrieved by which, the present appeal has been filed by Suresh Rajan (A.2).
3. Heard Mr. R. Sankarasubbu, learned counsel for Suresh Rajan (A.2) and Mr. R. Karthikeyan, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the NIA.
4. The NIA has filed a detailed counter affidavit objecting to the grant of bail to Suresh Rajan (A.2).
5. This Court gave its anxious consideration to the rival submissions.
6. The allegations against the accused trio viz., Vivek (A.1), Suresh Rajan (A.2) and Mohan (A.3) can be summarised as under:
Vivek (A.1) opened a Facebook account entitled “Thozhar Vivek” by using a sim card bearing no.90876 14797 belonging to Suresh Rajan (A.2). Thereafter, he accessed the said Facebook account with the mobile phone and sim card of Mohan (A.3) and uploaded the impugned post in his Facebook account. Even according to the NIA, on 18.12.2020, two days after the arrest of Vivek (A.1), Suresh Rajan (A.2) had deleted the Facebook account entitled “Thozhar Vivek” by using his mobile no.88708 04797. The NIA had not chosen to arrest Mohan (A.3) because, according to them, he is physically challenged. Thus, when both Vivek (A.1) and M
The central legal point established in the judgment is the significance of affirming allegiance to the Indian Constitution and disavowing violence and Maoist ideology as conditions for granting bail.
The court's decision to grant bail was influenced by the length of the appellant's incarceration, the status of the pending trial, and the compliance of other accused with bail conditions.
The court ruled that, under UAPA, bail cannot be granted where prima facie evidence establishes serious allegations against national security, emphasizing the heightened standard for bail in terroris....
The court may grant bail despite statutory restrictions under the UAPA if the accused's right to a speedy trial under Article 21 is infringed due to prolonged detention without reasonable trial prosp....
The court established that involvement with a banned terrorist organization and the collection of levies for such groups constitutes serious offenses under the UA(P) Act, warranting denial of bail wh....
The judgment established that the continued detention of the appellant was in violation of his right to personal liberty, and he was entitled to bail considering the delay in trial and the gravity of....
Bail – Being a member of banned organization is also an offence under UA(P) Act and bail can be declined.
The main legal point established is that the rigours of statutory restrictions under the UA(P) Act can be diluted if the accused has been incarcerated for a long time, and that pre-trial detention mu....
The court held that the Special Court did not err in dismissing the appellant's bail application, as there were reasonable grounds to believe that the accusations against the appellant were prima fac....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
