Non-compliance with bail conditions may lead to dismissal of recall petitions, but readiness to fulfill the conditions can result in setting aside such decisions.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 21 of NIA Act to call for the records in Crl.M.P.No.130 of 2022 dated 25.03.2022 in C.C.No.1 of 2019 on the file of Special Court under the NIA Act, 2008, Chennai at Poonamallee and set aside the same and release the appellant.)

M. Nirmal Kumar, J.

1. This appeal has been filed by Accused No.6 in C.C.No.1 of 2019 challenging the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.130/2022 dated 25.03.2022.

2. The case is that the appellant who is arrayed as Accused No.6 was charged under Section 38 of ''the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 [Act 37 of 1967]'' [hereinafter ''UAPA'' for the sake of convenience and clarity]. Earlier the appellant was granted bail by the Trial Court in Crl.M.P.No.1 of 2019 by order dated 22.02.2019 with certain conditions. Aggrieved against the said order, the respondent filed an appeal before this Court in Crl.A.No.133 of 2019. This Court by judgment dated 21.11.2019 disposed of the appeal directing the Trial Court to complete the trial within a period of six months without disturbing the bail granted by the Trial Court. Thereafter, investigation completed, charge sheet filed and trial is in progress, before the Trial Court in C.C.No.1 of 2019. On 08.03.2022, neither the appellant nor his counsel appeared before the Trial Court and hence Bailable Warrant was issued against the appellant. On the next hearing date on 09.03.2022 the appellant appeared, filed a recall petition which was considered on 10.03.2022 and the appellant was directed to furnish sureties as per Section 88 Cr.P.C. On 11.03.2022 when the case was called, the appellant/A6 could not furnish sureties as per Section 88 Cr.P.C. and the case was adjourned to 15.03.2022. Again on 15.03.2022 the appellant was unable to execute sureties and the case was adjourned to 17.03.2022 and thereafter to 22.03.2022. When the case was called on 23.03.2022, neither the appellant nor his counsel was present. Hence Non- Bailable Warrant [hereinafter ''NBW'' for the sake of convenience and brevity] was issued considering that as early as on 08.03.2022 when Bailable Warrant was recalled with a condition to execute a bond and furnish sureties as per Section 88 Cr.P.C., the same has not been complied with and for the second time, the appellant absented himself without any representation or any petition. Again, the case was called on 25.03.2023, on which date the petitioner was present, filed a recall petition with a memo and with one surety. Hence finding that the appellant not only absenting himself without any condonation and further for non-compliance of the order dated 08.03.2022, the recall petition filed under Section 70(2) Cr.P.C. in Crl.M.P.No.130 of 2022 was dismissed and the appellant was remanded to custody. Against which, the present appeal is filed.

3. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.130 of 2022 by the Trial Court dismissing the recall petition is erroneous, improper and illegal. He would submit that the appellant appeared before the Trial Court on hearings, either personally or through his counsel. The trial is not progressed and adjourned periodically. He further submitted that the appellant filed a memo before the Trial Court giving reasons for not producing the sureties immediately. Further, initially when the appellant was granted bail earlier in Crl.M.P.No.1 of 2019, he produced two sureties and thereafter on the satisfaction of the same, bond was accepted and the appellant was released from custody, thereafter the appellant is appearing before the Trial Court regularly and complying with the condition. Learned counsel submit that on one of the hearing, when the appellant was unable to reach the Court in time, NBW was issued and again the onerous condition of executing bond with two sureties was imposed. He further submitted that the appellant hails from Coimbatore and with great difficulty he was able to secure only one surety, in addition t