The court upheld the denial of bail due to the appellant's habitual offenses and non-compliance with bail conditions, emphasizing public safety and trial integrity.

Headnote:(A) National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 - Sections 16 and 18 - Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 - Sections 120

(B), 489

(B) IPC - Criminal appeal against bail denial - Appellant charged under multiple sections, including UAPA - Previous bail granted was violated due to absconding and non-compliance with court orders - The Special Court found no grounds for bail due to the appellant's habitual offending and risk of tampering with evidence. (Paras 2, 3, 4, 14, 15)

(B) Bail - Conditions for grant - The court emphasized that mere incarceration duration does not justify bail; the nature of the offense and compliance with court orders are paramount. (Paras 14, 15)

Facts of the case:
The appellant was charged with serious offenses under UAPA and IPC, previously granted bail but absconded, leading to a non-bailable warrant and subsequent arrest.

Findings of Court:
The Special Court found the appellant's actions violated bail conditions, posing a risk to the trial process.

Issues: The main issues were the appellant's compliance with bail conditions and the implications of his absconding behavior.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the appellant's habitual offenses and non-compliance with court orders justified the denial of bail, emphasizing the need for public safety and trial integrity.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

JUDGMENT

(Made by the Hon'ble Mr.Justice M.JOTHIRAMAN)

This criminal appeal has been filed seeking to set aside the order dated 05.08.2024 in Crl.MP.No.1454 of 2024 in Spl.SC.No.15 of 2022 passed by the Special Court under the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (Sessions Court for Exclusive Trial of Bomb Blast Cases and Special Court for NIA cases), Chennai at Poonamallee.

2. The appellant states in his petition before the Special Court as follows :-

(i)The petitioner states that charges for an offence under Sections 120 (B) IPC r/w.489(c) r/w.34 IPC. 120(B) of IPC r/w.16 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 , Section 16 & 18 of and of r/w.34 IPC on the file of the respondent/complainant.

(ii)Earlier the petitioner was granted bail and regularly attending the Courts, due to his ill health he was bedridden and NBW was issued on 18.08.2023 without notice and hearing. He was arrested by the respondent/police on 15.05.2024 and remanded on the same day on execution of NBW. The petitioner is ready to abide by any conditions imposed and ready to furnish solvent sureties for his release. The petitioner will not tamper the witnesses or evidence in the trial proceedings and prayed for bail.

3. The brief averments in the counter affidavit filed by the respondent/complainant :-

(i)The respondent has filed charge sheet on 22.02.2018 and the petitioner has been charge sheeted under Section 120 (B), 489B of IPC and Sections 16 and 18 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967. The Court was taken cognizance of offence in Spl.SC.No.15/2022 and thereafter charges have been framed by this Court for the offences under Section 120 (B), 489(B) of IPC and & 18 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967 against the petitioner/accused and the trial has also been commenced and examination of witnesses has already been commenced.

(ii)The petitioner was reassigned as A2 vide Spl.CC.No.15 of 2022 had filed bail petition before the Special Court in MP.No.499 of 2021 and the same was dismissed. The petitioner/accused filed an appeal before the Hon'ble High Court in Crl.A.No.2265 of 2022 and the appeal was allowed by the Hon'ble High Court on 26.08.2022 by granting bail with conditions to the petitioner/accused.

(iii) On contrary to the directions of this Court vide para 20(d) of the order dated 26.08.2022, the petitioner/accused had failed to report to the respondent/police on the following dates i.e., 01.01.2023, 05.02.2023, 20.08.2023, 27.08.2023, 03.09.2023 and 10.09.2023. A case was registered against the petitioner/accused vide Cr.No.553 of 2023 dated 16.08.2023 under Section 145, 341, 364(a), 506(ii) r/w.170 of IPC at Thiruvottriyur PS (H-8), Chennai – 19 and thus contravened para 20(f) of the order dated 26.08.2022.

(iv)The petitioner/accused has not appeared before the Special Court during the hearing dates on 18.08.2023, 28.08.2023, 04.09.2023 and 12.09.2023, thereby violated para 20(g) of the order dated 26.08.2022. Hence, NBW was issued against the petitioner/accused by the Special Court vide order dated 19.09.2023. The bail granted to the petitioner/accused was cancelled, by an order dated 16.10.2023 passed in Crl.MP.No.1854 of 2023 filed by the NIA. The NIA team tried to contact the petitioner/accused over his mobile number which was provided by him, as directed by the Hon'ble High Court, while granting bail to the petitioner/accused, but the same remained switched off from the date of his absence. A team of NIA had visited the address of the petitioner/accused where he ordinarily resides as furnished to the Court, but the petitioner/accused was not available there, thereby the petitioner/accused violated para 20(k).

(v) The NIA conducted continuous discreet as well as open enquiries to arrest the absconding petitioner/accused in and around his locality and all over the State of Tamil Nadu and necessary information was also sought from the concerned Village Offices about the petitioner/accused. The NBW issued against the pet

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2024 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 42993

HIGH COURT OF MADRASS.M. SUBRAMANIAM, M.JOTHIRAMAN, JJNOORUDEEN @ RAFI @ ISMAIL – AppellantVersusTHE STATE REP BY ITS – RespondentCrl.A.No.1115 of 2024

The court upheld the denial of bail due to the appellant's habitual offenses and non-compliance with bail conditions, emphasizing public safety and trial integrity.

HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, M.JOTHIRAMAN, JJ
NOORUDEEN @ RAFI @ ISMAIL – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE REP BY ITS – Respondent
Crl.A.No.1115 of 2024