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

2022 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 49762

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
HON`BLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN
REENA JOYCE MARY – Appellant
Versus
STATE REPRESENTED BY – Respondent



IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Reserved on : 16.8.2022 Delivered on : 02.9.2022 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA Criminal Appeal No.652 of 2022 Reena Joyce Mary Appellant vs.

State rep. by Deputy Superintendent of Police, Q Branch CID, Dharmapuri, (Uthangarai PS Crime Nos.1004/02

1005/02, 1006/02 and Kallavi PS Crime No.434/02) Respondent Criminal Appeal filed under Section 34 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002 to set aside the order dated 31.10.2019 in Crl.M.P.No.313 of 2019 in Spl.C.C.No.5 of 2003 on the file of the Special Court under the Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA), 2002 (Sessions Court for Exclusive Trial of Bomb Blast Cases), Poonamallee, Chennai, Poonamallee, Chennai and enlarge the appellant on bail.

For Appellant : Mr.R.Sankarasubbu For Respondent : Mr.Babu Muthumeeran, Additional Public Prosecutor JUDGMENT S.VAIDYANATHAN, J.

and A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA,J.

The Criminal Appeal has been filed seeking to set aside the order dated 31.10.2019 in Crl.M.P.No.313 of 2019 in Spl.C.C.No.5 of 2003 on the file of the Special Court under the Prevention of Terrorism Act, Poonamallee, Chennai and enlarge the appellant on bail.

2. The appellant is arrayed as A28 in Spl.C.C.No.5 of 2003. She has filed the present Criminal Appeal against denial of bail by the Special Court.

3. Brief facts behind the filing of the present Criminal Appeal is are as under:-

i) On receipt of some information on 23.11.2002, the Inspector of Police, heading a team of Naxalite Special Duty Wing, Dharmapuri District had conducted search at various places on different dates and after conducting enquiry, seizure of materials like explosive substances and exchange of fire between, a set of people were arrested identifying as Maoist and as a consequence, cases were registered in Crime Nos.1004/02,1005/02, 1006/02 on the file of Uthangarai Police Station and Crime No.434/02 on the file of Kallavi Police Station.

ii) In all the above cases, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, C.I.D. Branch, Coimbatore, took up investigation and filed charge sheet under Sections 148,333,307,333read with 149 IPC and 120B read with 3(2)(b), 3(3), 3(5), 4(b) and 22(1) of the Prevention Of Terrorism Act,2002, and Section 25(1B)(a)of the Arms Act,1959 and ultimately, the case was taken on file in Spl.C.C.No.5 of 2003.

iii) The appellant, being one among the accused persons, having failed in the previous attempts to get bail from the Special Court, filed Criminal Appeal No.1909 of 2003 before this court and obtained bail by order dated 28.4.2005 and accordingly, she was released on bail on 5.5.2005.

iv) Subsequently, the appellant had violated the bail conditions by her non appearance before the court after 16.11.2007. NBW came to be issued against her on 23.3.2009 and on vigorous search by various special teams, the appellant was arrested on 21.7.2016 by the Kancheepuram Q Branch Police in Crime No.1 of 2016 and she was produced before the Special Court on 30.8.2016 under P.T. Warrant and remanded to judicial custody. Bail Cancellation petition in Crl.M.P.No.3632 of 2016 in Criminal Appeal No.335 of 2004 filed by the prosecution before this court also came to be allowed on 23.1.2017.

v) Thereafter, the appellant had filed petition seeking bail in Crl.M.P.No.313 of 2019 in Spl.C.C.No.5 of 2003, which was dismissed by the Special Court. Aggrieved against the same, the present Criminal Appeal has been filed by the appellant.

4. Learned counsel Mr.R.Sankarasubbu appearing for the appellant would submit that the Special Court has erred in dismissing the bail petition mechanically by holding that the bail petition of a co- accused by name Chandra was dismissed and also without considering the fact that there is no iota of evidence to detain the appellant and without considering the relevant circumstances for grant of bail. He would further submit that the appellant is a woman social worker fighting for the cause of poor, do

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
whatsapp-icon Back to top