IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S. VAIDYANATHAN, A.D. JAGADISH CHANDIRA, JJ.
Sadam Hussain - Appellant
Versus
State rep. by Inspector of Police, Coimbatore & Another - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 597 of 2022
Decided On : 26-08-2022
The appellant, initially A1 and later re-arrayed as A3, was arrested for alleged offences under various sections including Sections 153A(1)(b), 120(B) of IPC, Section 7(1)(a) of CLA Act 1932, Section 25(1A) of Arms Act, and Section 16 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. The prosecution alleged a conspiracy to murder based on the appellant's confession, but the court found the allegations to be false and fabricated. The court noted that the case was referred to the National Investigation Agency, which rejected the proposal for investigation. The court allowed the appeal and ordered the appellant's release on bail, finding that the allegations did not meet the definition of a 'Terrorist Act' and there were no reasonable grounds for believing the accusations were prima facie true.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 21(4) of National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 to set aside the judgment of the Vacation & Sessions Judge, Coimbatore made in Crl.M.P.No.2394 of 2022 dated 12.5.2022 in Cr.No.85 of 2022 and enlarge the appellant/appellant on bail.)
S. Vaidyanathan, J. & A.D. Jagadish Chandira, J.
The Appeal has been filed seeking to set aside the judgment of the Vacation & Sessions Judge, Coimbatore made in Crl.M.P.No.2394 of 2022 dated 12.5.2022 in Cr.No.85 of 2022 and enlarge the appellant/appellant on bail.
2. The appellant, who was A1, later on alteration of FIR, re arrayed as A3 in a case registered by the respondent in Crime No.85/2022 for the alleged offences under section 153A(1)(b), 120(B) of IPC and Section 7(1)(a) of CLA Act 1932 @ Section 153A(1)(b), 120(B) of IPC and Section 7(1)(a) of CLA Act 1932 and section 25(1A) of Arms Act @ Section 153A(1)(b), 120(B) and 201 of IPC and Section 7(1)(a) of CLA Act, 1932 and section 25(1A) of Arms Act and Section 16 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. The appellant was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 08.03.2022 and he is in incarceration for more than 100 days.
3. Brief facts of the case are as under:~
i) According to the prosecution, on 07.03.2022 at about 9 A.M when Tr. P.Silambarasan, Sub Inspector of Police of Selvapuram Police Station with his Head Constable 2395 Solomon was on rounds duty, he noticed the appellant moving in suspicious circumstances at the junction of Indra Nagar and Amul Nagar 1st Street and on enquiry, the Sub Inspector of Police found that the appellant was having his driving license with an address “Sadam Husain, S/o.Mohammed Iqbal, D.No.79/11A, Santhiyagappar Palayam, Kemps Town, Trichy“.
ii) On further enquiry, the appellant confessed that he was deputed by one Bakrudeen, IMDA President of Chennai over phone to surveil the movements of one Kumaresan residing at Meenakumari Illam, Indira Nagar, Selvapuram as one Arunkumar, son of the said Kumaresan loved and married one Sahanaazmi, daughter of Rajamohammed and Noor Nisha of Tiruvarur, and the said Kumaresan had objected for his son Arunkumar to convert to Islam faith by relinquishing Hindu religion and therefore, if the said Kumaresan is killed, there would not be any difficulty for Arunkumar to embrace Islam faith and hence Noor Nisha had requested Bakrudeen to assist this matter and it would be a lesson in future to prevent others to marry Islam people and change them to Hinduism and the appellant had also confessed that he had come for this purpose with Bakrudeen, Imran and Mohammed Ali Jinna who were available on the way to Jalagandeeswarar Temple at Puttuvikki Road to watch the residence of Kumaresan, and that they had committed a conspiracy and hatched a plan if the appellant would give a signal at the appropriate movement Bakrudeen, Imran and Mohammed Ali Jinna would join him to commit the murder of Kumaresan. During enquiry, the appellant had exhibited the photo of Kumaresan from his mobile phone, which was forwarded to him by Bakrudeen.
iii) Mr.Silambarasan, Sub Inspector of Police had produced the appellant, his driving licence and mobile phone to Mr.Natarajan, Sub Inspector of Police who registered the case in D~2 Selvapuram Police Station Cr.No.85/2022 U/s. U/s.153A(1) (b) and 120B IPC, Sec.7(1)(a) of Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932.
iv) Thiru.Saravanan, Inspector of Police, D~2 Selvapuram Police Station took up the investigation and inspected the said place where the appellant was first seen by Silambarasan, Sub Inspector of Police. He prepared an observation mahazar in the presence of witnesses Gobalakrishnan and Venkatarajan and rough sketch and recorded the statements of Sub Inspectors Silambarasan, Natarajan and Head Constable Solomon and mahazar witness Venkalarajan.
v) The Inspector arrested the appellant at 12.45 pm at the Police Station and recorded his
The court found that the allegations against the appellant did not meet the definition of a 'Terrorist Act' and there were no reasonable grounds for believing the accusations were prima facie true.
The main legal point established in this judgment is that the appellant's Facebook posts do not constitute the alleged offenses under the Indian Penal Code and that Section 124A IPC is under challeng....
Sections 17 read as punishment for raising funds for terrorist act.
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 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 court emphasized that constitutional rights to liberty prevail when trials are unduly prolonged, allowing bail despite serious terrorism charges.
The court established that under the UAPA, particularly Section 43D(5), the standard for denying bail is based on whether the accusations are prima facie true, which requires a careful examination of....
Bail – Being a member of banned organization is also an offence under UA(P) Act and bail can be declined.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.