Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
K. Lakshman, Juvvadi Sridevi, JJ.
Sanaboina Kumara Swamy - Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.1084 of 2023
Decided On : 22-03-2024
Bail - Offences under UAPA - Sections 120-B, 143, 147, 148 read with 149 of IPC, Sections 8(1) and (2) of TPS Act, Section 5 of ES Act, Sections 10, 13, 18, 20 of UAPA - Summary of Acts and Sections
Fact of the Case:
The appellant/A.12 sought regular bail challenging the order dismissing his bail application. The NIA alleged that the appellant conspired to supply explosives to a proscribed organization. The appellant contended that he was falsely implicated and that the investigation was completed, hence he should be granted bail.
Finding of the Court:
The court analyzed the allegations, legal provisions, and precedents related to bail under UAPA. It emphasized the need for a prima facie view of the involvement of the accused and the balancing of various factors. The court found that the appellant was entitled to bail due to completed investigation and the absence of loss of life or property. Stringent conditions were imposed to secure his presence for trial.
Issues: The issues revolved around the appellant's alleged involvement in supplying explosives to a proscribed organization, completion of investigation, and the need for bail under UAPA.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the completion of investigation, the absence of loss of life or property, and the need to balance the appellant's rights with the seriousness of the allegations.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the lower court's order, and granted bail to the appellant/A.12 with stringent conditions.
JUDGMENT
K. Lakshman, J. - Heard Mr. Bramhadandi Ramesh, learned senior counsel representing Ms.R.Swarnalatha, learned counsel for the appellant/A.12 and Mr. P. Vishnuvardhan Reddy, learned Special Public Prosecutor for NIA appearing on behalf of the respondent.
2. Criminal Appeal No.1084 of 2023 is filed by Accused No.12 challenging the order dated 16.12.2023 passed by learned IV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge - cum - Special Court for NIA Cases, Nampally, Hyderabad (for short 'Designated Court/Special Court') dismissing the application filed by him vide Crl.M.P. No.1767 of 2023 in RC-03/2023/NIA/HYD seeking regular bail.
3. The case of the NIA in brief is as under:
i) On 05.06.2023 at 4.00 P.M. at the outskirts of Dosillapalli Village, Cherla Mandal, TVR Suri, Sub-Inspector of Police, Cherla Police Station, while conducting vehicle checking, intercepted A.1 to A.3 along with incriminating material objects, such as one drone, cortex wire bundles - 2 each 80 meters length, gelatin sticks - 10, detonators - 5 ( for short, 'case property') while accused Nos.1 to 7 conspired to hand over the same to the underground cadres of proscribed organization of CPI (Maoist) i.e., accused Nos.8 to 11 and others, for making landmine and IED firearms.
ii) It was also revealed that accused Nos.1 to 3 purchased one Lathe machine and used to cut the iron rods to make firearms, one drone to observe the police party movements in the forest area and also received explosive substance from accused Nos.4 to A.7 which they have received from accused No.12, while accused Nos.1 to 3 were trying to supply the said items to banned CPI (Maoist) Party leaders pursuant to the conspiracy. The appellant/A.12 was apprehended in connection with Cr.No.50 of 2023 of Dummuguda police Station and he was produced in the present crime i.e. Cr.No.52 of 2023 on P.T. Warrant. Material objects were seized from A.1 and A.3. They were produced on PT warrants before the Magistrate Court at Bhadrachalam on 12.06.2023.
iii) Initially, a case in Crime No.52 of 2023 was registered on 05.06.2023 by Cherla Police Station for the offences under Sections -120-B, 143, 147 and 148 read with 149 of IPC and Sections - 8 (i) and (ii) of the Telangana Public Security Act, 1992 ( for short, TPS Act), Section - 5 of the Explosives Substance Act, 1908 (for short, ES Act) and Sections - 10, 13, 18 and 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (for short, UAPA). Subsequently, investigation was entrusted to NIA pursuant to the directions of the Central Government, the case was re-registered as RC.No.3 of 2023/NIA/ Hyderabad for the aforesaid offences.
iv) Thus, accused Nos.1 to A.7 got acquaintances with banned CPI (Maoist) Party UG armed Cadre i.e., accused Nos.8 to 11 and others and criminally conspired with them by being an associate with them to supply explosives and other items which are used to make landmines, IED and firearms.
4. The appellant/A.12 has filed application before the trial Court under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail. The trial Court, vide orders, dated 16.12.2023 dismissed the said application. Challenging the same, A.12 has preferred the present appeal seeking bail on the following grounds:-
i. The Investigating Officer in the said crime informed that he has already filed chargesheet, whereas, trial Court dismissed bail applications on the ground that the Investigation is pending.
ii. The police produced the appellant herein/A.12 on P.T. Warrant in the present crime on 12.06.2023 NIA Authorities filed a remand extension petition and police custody petition before the Designated Court.
iii. The appellant herein is innocent and he is falsely implicated in the present crime. The entire material objects were recovered from the possession of A.1 to A.3 and A-7 and produced before the Designated Court.
iv. The police have arrested the appellant on the ground that he is supplying the explosives to the Banned CPI Maoist leaders pursuant to the conspiracy and arre
The main legal point established is that the grant of bail under UAPA requires a prima facie view of the accused's involvement, balancing of various factors, and imposition of stringent conditions to....
The completion of investigation and prolonged judicial custody are significant factors in determining the entitlement to bail under UAPA. The court emphasized the mandatory requirements under Section....
(1) Bail application – Question of grant of bail concern both liberty of individuals undergoing criminal prosecution as well as interest of criminal justice system in ensuring that those who commit c....
The court upheld the denial of bail under UAPA, emphasizing the serious nature of the allegations and the prima facie case against the appellant, which posed a threat to national security.
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....
(1) Bail – There must be something more than grave suspicion while holding that there is a prima facie case to deny bail.(2) Pre-trial detention is an anathema to Constitution besides being in violat....
The court established that under the UA(P) Act, particularly Section 43D(5), bail can be denied if there are reasonable grounds to believe the accusations against the accused are prima facie true, em....
The court confirmed that under Section 43D(5) of UAPA, bail cannot be granted if there are reasonable grounds to believe the accusations are prima facie true.
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.
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
