Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S. VAIDYANATHAN, A.D. JAGADISH CHANDIRA, JJ.
Johnson Samuvel Appellant - Appellant
Versus
Union of India Rep by The Inspector of Police, Chennai - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 642 of 2022
Decided On : 02-08-2022
Bail - National Investigation Agency Act - 2008 - [Siphoning of Funds] - [Passport Act, 1967, IPC, Foreigners (Amendment) Act, 2004, Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967] - The court discussed the charges against the appellant under various sections of the Passport Act, IPC, and Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, and the application of Section 43D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act in rejecting the bail application. The court emphasized the dropping of charges under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act against the appellant and the principles of speedy trial and personal liberty in granting bail to the appellant.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, an advocate, was implicated in a case involving siphoning of funds from bank accounts for the revival of LTTE. The National Investigation Agency dropped charges under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act against the appellant and charged him under Sections 120B, 465, 468 read with Section 109 IPC.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant's role was limited to aiding the main accused in siphoning funds and that there was no specific material to incriminate the appellant for grave offences under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. The court emphasized the principles of speedy trial and personal liberty and granted bail to the appellant.
Issues: The issues involved the application of Section 43D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act in rejecting the bail application and the dropping of charges under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act against the appellant.
Ratio Decidendi: The dropping of charges under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act against the appellant, the principles of speedy trial, and personal liberty were the key legal principles established in the judgment.
Final Decision: The court allowed the Criminal Appeal, set aside the order rejecting the bail application, and ordered the release of the appellant on bail pending trial, imposing specific conditions.
Key Points: - The court considered the dropping of charges under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) against the appellant and the implications for bail, speedy trial, and personal liberty. (!) (!) (!) - The court held that Section 43D(5) of UAPA does not by itself bar constitutional bail powers and emphasized balancing liberty with gravity of the offence and risk of tampering with evidence or witnesses. (!) (!) (!) - The court granted bail with specific conditions, noting that the charges against the appellant under UAPA were dropped and the appellant faced IPC charges (sections 120B, 465, 468 read with 109 IPC). (!) (!) (!) (!) - (!) - The decision referenced and applied principles from Ashim @ Asim Kumar Haranath and Sanjay Chandra regarding speedy trial and the right to liberty. (!) (!) (!) - The court required additional bail conditions to ensure presence and prevent tampering, including weekly presence, reporting, and prohibitions on new offences or communal agitation. (!) (!) (!) (!) - The judgment discusses the balance between grave economic offences and the accused’s personal liberty, citing Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb and Sundar Singh Bhati to support bail in light of speedy trial concerns. (!) (!) (!) - (!) (!) (!) - The appeal was allowed, with the Special Court’s bail denial reversed and the appellant released on bail pending trial under stringent conditions. (!) - (!) (!) - (!)
JUDGMENT
S. Vaidyanathan, J. & A.D. Jagadish Chandira, J.
1. The Appeal has been filed seeking to set aside the order dated 9.5.2022 passed by the Special Court under the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (Sessions Court for Exclusive Trial of Bomb Blast Cases), Poonamallee, Chennai in Crl.M.P.No.185 of 2022 and to enlarge the appellant on bail in Spl.S.C.No.1 of 2022 on the file of the respondent police.
2. Brief facts of the case are as under:-
i) One Mary Franciska Letchumanan (A1 in the case), a Sri Lankan Tamil was intercepted on 01.10.2021 at the Chennai Airport and enquiry by the Officers of the Foreigners Regional Registration Office, Chennai, revealed that she was possessing Indian Passport and Indian Voter ID, intentionally obtained concealing her nationality and producing fake and fabricated Indian identification documents.
ii) Thereupon, based on a written complaint lodged by Mr.K.G.Sadasivan, Assistant Foreigners Regional Registration Officer, Bureau of Immigration, Chennai Airport, a case in Chennai City QBranch CID Crime No.1 of 2021 for the offences under Sections 12(1)(b), 12(1-A) (a) of the Passport Act, 1967, r/w Sections 420, 465, 468 and 471 IPC r/w Section 14(a) of the Foreigners (Amendment) Act, 2004, was registered by the State Police.
iii) The investigation conducted by the Q-Branch CID revealed that Mary is a Sri Lankan national and had obtained a fake Indian passport and Indian voter identity card and she had entered into India with an ulterior motive to commit financial crime in collusion with the Ex-LTTE Cadres at abroad. She was taken into police custody by the Q Branch CID from 11.10.2021 to 13.10.2021 and after such custodial interrogation, the appellant/A4 was arrested on 13.10.2021 by the Q Branch CID Police, Chennai and on considering the nature of offence involved, the investigation of this case was transferred from the file of the Q-Branch CID to the file of the National Investigation Agency vide order dated 17.01.2022 passed by the Central Government and the case has been re-registered as R.C.No.02/2022/NIA/DLI.
iv) The FIR came to be altered and offences under Sections 120B, 420, 465, 468, 471 IPC and Sections 18, 39 and 40 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 were added and the case was transferred to the District Court, Chengalpattu.
v) A1 was taken custody by the National Investigation Agency from 27.2.2022 to 5.3.2022. The custodial interrogation of the said Mary Franciska Letchumanan by the Q Branch CID police and the National Investigation Agency revealed various facts including a criminal conspiracy of A1 with other accused viz., A2 to A8 with an intention of siphoning off a sum of Rs.42.28 crores deposited in the dormant accounts of three Indians, viz., Hamida A Lalljee, Arshia A Lalljee and Iskander A Lalljee in Indian Overseas Bank, Fort Mumbai Branch; the money was intended for financing the activities of the LTTE.
vi) The further investigation revealed that A1 was being actively assisted by some others, who have been implicated in the case, including the appellant-Johnson Samuel (A4).
vii) The allegation against the appellant/A4 is that he had a discussion with A1 about her plan of siphoning of Rs.42.28 crores lying in the IOB account of Hamida A Lalljee, Arshia A Lalljee and Iskander A Lalljee in Fort Mumbai Branch by impersonating A7 Mohan with the active assistance of A6 and utilize it for the revival of LTTE in India and A1 had agreed to give a share of 20% of the total amount to the appellant/A4 for the assistance he would render in siphoning the amount.
viii) Accordingly, the National Investigation Agency had filed the charge sheet against the appellant/A4, A6 and A7 on 29.3.2022 before the Special Court.
ix) Seeking bail, the appellant had filed a petition in Crl.M.P.No.185 of 2022, which came to be dismissed by the Special Court by order order 9.5.2022. Aggrieved against the same, the present Criminal Appeal has been filed by the
The dropping of charges under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act against the appellant and the principles of speedy trial and personal liberty were central legal points established in the judgm....
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....
The Court's discretion to grant bail under Section 43D(5) of the U.A.P. Act is restricted if the Court finds reasonable grounds to believe that the accusations against the accused are prima facie tru....
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....
Right to speedy trial enshrined in Article 21 prevails over statutory provisions restricting bail, especially when prolonged incarceration is evident.
The court emphasized the importance of prima facie evidence, the right to a speedy trial, and the lack of incriminating material in the possession of the accused.
The right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is imperative, and prolonged incarceration without the likelihood of a timely trial may warrant the grant of bail.
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
