Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 79061
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
A.D.Jagadish Chandira, R.Poornima, JJ
Mohammed Yosuf Raseen – Appellant
Versus
The Inspector of Police Melapalayam Police Station, Tirunelveli City – Respondent
Crl.R.C.(MD) Nos.505 and 506 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.Kathirvelu, Senior Counsel for Mr.S.M.A.Jinnah, Mr.S.M.A.Jinnah
For the Respondents: Mr.A. Thiruvadikumar Additional Public Prosecutor
Statutory bail rights must be upheld where detention exceeds legal time frames without adherence to required procedures, confirming courts must ensure compliance with statutory requirements.
Headnote:(A) Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 - Section 43-D(2) - Burden of proof regarding the extension of custody beyond 90 days - Dismissal of statutory bail application was deemed illegal as the investigating agency did not comply with the procedural safeguards mandated by law. (Paras 6-12)
(B) Bail - Statutory bail under Section 187(2) of BNSS - Right to statutory bail arises upon the lapse of the statutory period for detention without proper justification and extension application as required, was not filed by the prosecution. (Paras 6-10)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners, arrested in connection with a case under explosive substances act, filed applications for statutory bail after 90 days of custody, which were erroneously dismissed by the Magistrate for lack of valid procedural requirements by the prosecution.
Findings of Court:
The dismissal of the bail application was illegal due to failure to follow statutory provisions regarding timely completion of investigation and proper application for custody extension.
Issues: Whether the petitioners were entitled to statutory bail as per Section 43-D(2) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 given the absence of required filings for detention beyond statutory limits.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that statutory bail is a mandatory right that is violated when the investigation isn't completed within the stipulated time or the necessary procedural safeguards are ignored.
Result: Criminal Revision Petitions are allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. summary of the case and factual background. (Para 2 , 12) |
| 2. arguments for bail and procedural claims. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. court observations on procedural failures. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 10) |
| 4. judicial rationale for granting bail. (Para 11) |
| 5. conclusion and outcome of the petitions. (Para 13) |
COMMON ORDER
A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA , J. ,
These Criminal revisions have been filed seeking to set aside the impugned dismissal order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.V, Tirunelveli in Crl.M.P.Nos.793 and 794 of 2025 dated 21.02.2025 and release the petitioners on bail.
2. The brief facts of the case are as under:
2.1 Based on the complaint lodged by the defacto complainant Manikandan a case was registered on 16.11.2024 at 13.30 hrs in Crime No. 354 of 2024 under Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act , 1908 on the file of the Melapalayam Police Station.
2.2.The defacto complainant who is the lessee of the Alangar theatre had taken the theatre on 12 years lease and after renovating had been running the same for three years. Ganguva featuring Surya and Amaran featuring Sivakarthikeyan were screened in the theatre and on 16.11.2024 at about 3.05a.m., watchman of the theatre had called him over phone and informed that two persons had hurdled petrol bomb into the theatre and ran away and he had immediately gone to the theatre and intimated the same to the police and showed them the CCTV footage and he has given complaint and thereby requested the first respondent police to take action.
2.3 The case was taken up for investigation by the first respondent upon recovery of CCTV footages. A2/Mohamed Yusuf Raseen was arrested on 20.11.2024. A3/Syed Mohammed Buhari was arrested on 19.11.2024 respectively and remanded to judicial custody. Based on the investigation first respondent altered the sections of law into Section 196,113(2) of BNSS along with Section 3 of Explosives Substance Act 1908 and alteration reports were filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tirunelveli on 19.11.2024 and 20.11.2024 respectively. Subsequently pursuant to the chief officer proceedings in RC No. 05915/Crime 3(2)/2024, dated 28.11.2024 investigation in this case was transferred to the second respondent and the second respondent took up the case for further investigation on 08.12.2024 and during the course of investigation further witnesses were examined and based on the materials gathered five other accused were arrested and remanded to judicial custody. Further based on the materials alteration report was filed invoking Sections 61(2),249,196 and 113(2)(b) of the BNS along with Section 3 of the Explosives Substances Act. The said alteration report was filed before the Judicial Magistrate Court No.V, Tirunelveli on25.01.2025.
2.4. During the course of investigation it had come to light that A1/Imthiyas who is the member of banned organization Al-Umma was the mastermind behind the incident. He was absconding for more than two months and was eventually arrested on 22.01.2025 and further A8/ Sadam Hussain @ Sadam who has harboured the other accused on instructions of A1/Imthiyas was formally arrested on 01.02.2025 while he was in custody in another case at Coimbatore, Central Prison in receipt of another case. A8/Sadam Hussain @ Sadam was produced through P.T.warrant on 05.02.2025 and he was remanded in the present case by the learned Judicial Magistrate on the same day. Subsequently application seeking custody of A8/Sadam Hussain @ Sadam was filed on 06.02.2025 and the same was allowed on 17.02.2025 and A8 was taken into one day custody on 18.02.2025.. Whileso, the prosecution filed a petition in Cr.M.P.No.649 of 2025 under Section 193(9) of BNSS seeking extension of thirty days for completion of investigation and filing of final report on 14.02.2025 and the same was allowed by the learned Magistrate on 17.02.2025. Pursuant to the custodial interrogation of A8/Sadam Hussain @ Sadam based on the statement of witnesses and documents collected the inve
