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

2022 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 87351

MADRAS HIGH COURT
MIR ANAS ALI – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE REP BY ITS – Respondent
CRL A 1232/2022



Advocates:
['M/S J RAVIKUMAR', '', 'R NAVEEN SRINIVASAN', 'PUBLIC PROSECUTOR']

CRL.A.No.1232 of 2022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

RESERVED ON : 20.12.2022

PRONOUNCED ON : 23.12.2022

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE P.N. PRAKASH

AND

THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH

CRL.A.No.1232 of 2022

Mir Anas Ali

.. Appellant

Vs.

State rep. by

The Inspector of Police

Ambur Town Police Station

Thirupathur District

Cr.No.193/2022

.. Respondent

Criminal Appeal filed under Section 21(1) of the National

Investigation Agency, Act, 2008, to set aside the order dated 16.11.2022

passed by the Additional District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Ambur,

in Crl..M.P.No.4096 of 2022.

For Appellant

Mr.J.Ravikumar

For Respondent Mr.R.Muniyapparaj

Additional Public Prosecutor

1/20

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRL.A.No.1232 of 2022

J U D G M E N T

N. ANAND VENKATESH, J.

This Criminal Appeal has been filed to set aside the order dated

16.11.2022 passed by the Additional District Munsif-cum-Judicial

Magistrate, Ambur, in Crl..M.P.No.4096 of 2022.

2. The minimum facts that are required to decide this criminal appeal

are as under :

2.1. Based on a complaint given by one Thangavel, Special

Sub-Inspector of Police, Ambur Town Police Station, a case in Ambur Town

P.S. Crime No.193 of 2022 was registered on 30.07.2022 for the offences

under Sections 121, 122 and 125 IPC and Sections 18, 18-A, 20, 38 and 39

of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (in short “the UAP Act”)

by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Ambur Sub-Division.

2.2. The complaint discloses that during discreet enquiries conducted

by the special branch, an information was received that one Mir Anas Ali

2/20

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRL.A.No.1232 of 2022

(appellant herein), S/o.Mir Hidayath Ali, had joined Islamic State of Iraq

and Syria (ISIS) and was propagating its ideologies and policies actively in

the social media. Therefore, the said Mir Anas Ali was arrested by the

Deputy Superintendent of Police, Ambur Sub-Division, on 30.07.2022, for

the offences disclosed in the FIR and was produced before the learned

Additional District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Ambur (for brevity

“the Magistrate”) on 30.07.2022, who remanded him in judicial custody for

15 days.

2.3. The investigation was continued by the Deputy Superintendent of

Police, Ambur Sub-Division and it is reported that the appellant was being

periodically produced before the Magistrate Court, every 15 days for

extension of judicial remand. While that being so, the appellant filed a bail

petition in Crl.M.P.No.2501 of 2022 in the Court of the Principal District

and Sessions Judge, Vellore (for brevity “the Sessions Judge”), which was

dismissed on merits on 01.09.2022.

3/20

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRL.A.No.1232 of 2022

2.4. Thereafter, the appellant sent a representation from prison to the

Court, stating that he does not have the means to engage an Advocate and

prayed for his release on bail. Based on this representation that was

forwarded to the District Legal Services Authority, a counsel by name

Mr.N.Anbarasan (Enrolment No.4142/2012) was nominated to file a bail

petition for the appellant. Accordingly, a second bail petition was filed in

Crl.M.P.No.3295 of 2022, in which, after hearing both sides, the learned

Sessions Judge, by order dated 15.10.2022, released the appellant on bail,

without adverting to Section 43D of the UAP Act, treating this case as an

another run-of-the-mill bail petition.

2.5. Realising the seriousness of the case, the prosecution filed a

petition on 17.10.2022 in Crl.M.P.No.3427 of 2022 in Crl.M.P.No.3295 of

2022 to cancel the bail under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. in the Sessions Court.

Since the prosecution had moved the petition for cancellation of bail, the

sureties that were offered by the appellant were not accepted and therefore,

he continued to be in incarceration.

4/20

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judi

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