SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Mad) 2436

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M. SUNDAR, R. SAKTHIVEL, JJ.
M. Mohamed Abbas & Another – Appellants
Versus
The State represented by The Superintendent of Police, National Investigation Agency, NIA, Police Station, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi & Others – Respondents
Criminal O.P. No. 12229 of 2023, Criminal Appeal No. 678 of 2023 & H.C.P. No. 1114 of 2023 & Crl.M.P. No.7402 of 2023 in Crl.O.P. No.12229 of 2023 & Crl.M.P. No. 8903 of 2023 in HCP No. 1114 of 2023
Decided On : 01-08-2023

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant:M.Ajmal Khan, Senior Advocate instructed by C.M. Arumugam, R. Vivekananthan, S. Jim Raj Milton, M. Krithika S. Parthasarathy, S. Senthil Murugan N.M. Shajahan, Advocates. For the Respondent: Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General of India S.V. Raju, Addl. Solicitor General of India AR.L. Sundaresan, Addl. Solicitor General of India for High Court of Madras R. Karthikeyan, Special Public Prosecutor, B. Mohan, Special Public Prosecutor N. Baaskaran Special Public Prosecutor, R2, E. Raj Thilak, Additional Public Prosecutor.

Headnote:

The court addressed three matters: a criminal original petition seeking to quash an FIR, a criminal appeal challenging the denial of bail, and a habeas corpus petition seeking the release of the petitioner's brother. The court held that the FIR should not be quashed, granted bail to the petitioner in the criminal appeal, and closed the habeas corpus petition without expressing an opinion on its merits.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, an advocate, was added as an accused in an FIR alleging offenses under the Indian Penal Code and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. The petitioner filed a petition to quash the FIR, a criminal appeal challenging the denial of bail, and a habeas corpus petition seeking the release of his brother, who was also arrested in the case.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the FIR should not be quashed, granted bail to the petitioner in the criminal appeal, and closed the habeas corpus petition without expressing an opinion on its merits. The court found that there was no mala fide intent in adding the petitioner as an accused in the FIR, that the accusations against the petitioner were not prima facie true, and that the petitioner was entitled to bail. The court also found that the habeas corpus petition was not maintainable.

Issues: 1. Whether the FIR should be quashed? 2. Whether the petitioner should be granted bail? 3. Whether the habeas corpus petition is maintainable?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the FIR should not be quashed because there was no mala fide intent in adding the petitioner as an accused and the accusations against the petitioner were not prima facie true. 2. The court held that the petitioner should be granted bail because the accusations against him were not prima facie true and he was not likely to abscond or tamper with evidence. 3. The court held that the habeas corpus petition was not maintainable because the petitioner's brother was not in illegal detention.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition to quash the FIR, allowed the criminal appeal and granted bail to the petitioner, and closed the habeas corpus petition without expressing an opinion on its merits.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition No.12229 of 2023 has been filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code seeking to call for the records in Crime No.RC-42/2022/NIA/DLI on the file of the second respondent police and quash the same as against the petitioner and thus render justice. Criminal Appeal No.678 of 2023 has been filed under Section 21 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 to call for the records and set aside the order dated 20.06.2023 in Crl.M.P.No.893/2023 on the file of learned Special Court under National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (Sessions Court for Exclusive Trial of Bomb Blast Case) Poonamallee, Chennai in Crime No.RC-42/2022/NIA/DLI on the file of the respondent police and enlarge the appellant on bail and thus render justice. H.C.P.No.1114 of 2023 has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking direction to respondents 1 and 2 to produce the body or person of the petitioner''s brother namely M.Mohamed Abbas, S/o Mohamed Zakaria aged about 44 years before this Hon''ble Court and set him at liberty by quashing the impugned remand order dated 09.05.2023 so far as him concerned passed by learned Special Court NIA Cases (Sessions Court Exclusive Trial of Bomb Blast Cases, Chennai) Poonamallee, Chennai in R.C.No.42/2022/NIA/DLI dated 19.09.2022 on the file of the first respondent and pass such further and other orders as this Hon''ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice.)

M. SUNDAR, J

1. Captioned matters will be governed by this common order.

FACTUAL MATRIX :

2 Factual matrix in a nutshell, i.e., facts that are essential for appreciating this common order are that the petitioner Mr.M.Mohamed Abbas is a practicing Advocate [to be noted, Mr.M.Mohamed Abbas is the petitioner in captioned Crl.O.P.No.12229 of 2023, appellant in captioned Crl.A.No.678 of 2023 and Mr.M.Syed Mohamed Abuthahir (Mr.M.Mohamed Abbas''s brother) is the petitioner in captioned HCP No.1114 of 2023 but this court shall be referring to him as ''petitioner'' in this common order for the sake of convenience and clarity]; that petitioner enrolled as an Advocate in the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu on 01.11.2006; that the petitioner has been practicing as a Lawyer for over 16 ½ years now predominantly in Madurai Bench of Madras High Court and in the District & Sessions Courts, Madurai; that petitioner''s father-inlaw Mr.Mohamed Ali Jinnah is also a practicing Advocate in Madurai; that on 16.09.2022, Under Secretary with the Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi directed the ''National Investigation Agency'' [hereinafter ''NIA'' for the sake of brevity] to register a ''First Information Report'' [''FIR'' for the sake of brevity] based on what is described as credible information; that pursuant to such directive, NIA registered FIR No.RC- 42/2022/NIA/DLI against 13 named individuals and other unknown persons for suspected offences under Sections 120B, 153A and 153AA of ''The Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)'' [hereinafter ''IPC'' for the sake of brevity] and Sections 13, 17, 18, 18B, 38 and 39 of ''the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 [Act 37 of 1967]'' {hereinafter ''UAPA'' for the sake of brevity}.

3 The crux and gravamen of the aforementioned FIR is, the accused persons are office bearers of ''Popular Front of India'' (''PFI'' for the sake of brevity) which is registered as a society under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (Act 21 of 1860) vide Registration No.S/226/Dist.South/2010 in Delhi; that extremist ideology is being spread; that alleged activities include planning of unlawful acts, planning of terrorist acts, organising marches, raising of funds for committing terrorist activities and recruitment of members for such activities; that the FIR goes on to say that such activities inter-alia cause communal disharmony and ill feelings among members of different religions; that there is credible information that PFI has been clandestinely associated

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top