For Appellant(s): Mr.Vikram Veerasamy

For Respondent(s): Mr. ARL.Sundaresan Additional Solicitor General Assisted By Mr.T.Shanmugam and Mr.G.Siddi Ramulu for NIA Cases

Judgment

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by Dr.Anita Sumanth J.)

This is an appeal challenging order dated 05.03.2024 passed by the District and Sessions Judge, the Special Court under the National Investigation Agency (NIA) Act rejecting the grant of bail.

The appellant was A3 in Crime No.207 of 2022 registered on 23.10.2022 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. and Section 3(a) of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908.

The case of the prosecution/respondents, represented by Mr.ARL.Sundaresan, learned Additional Solicitor General assisted by Mr.T.Shanmugam and Mr.G.Siddi Ramulu, learned counsel for NIA Cases, is that the appellant had conspired with other accused with the express intent of unleashing violence, and creating enmity against a specific section of society.

His role was specifically to provide logistical support. Using the cover of a used car dealer, the appellant had purchased a Maruti 800 car and supplied the same to A1 who had driven the vehicle for carrying out blasts in front of a temple in Coimbatore. The appellant was thus a party to the terror conspiracy.

The father of the appellant is serving life sentence in the 1998 Coimbatore serial bomb blast case, presently out on interim bail. The father and paternal uncle of the appellant are the founding members of a proscribed terrorist organization by name Al-Ummah. Seeking to draw a link from the aforesaid relationships, and given the antecedents of the appellant’s father, the prosecution apprehends that if the appellant is released on bail, he will certainly hamper the on-going investigation, tamper with evidence and, intimidate and threaten witnesses.

Mr.Vikram Veerasamy, learned counsel denies any involvement of the appellant in the terror attack on 23.10.2022. He puts forth the defence that the appellant was a used car dealer and had sold the car to the deceased for valid consideration. There are inconsistencies in the statements relied on by the Prosecution, and all the evidence collected relates only to routine work carried out by the appellant as a used car dealer. Even assuming that the appellant has a certain ideology, mere ideological inclination or even a radical motivation, for that matter, would not constitute an offence under UAPA.

The witnesses do not support the case of the Prosecution, and even if the digital devices revealed that the appellant was in touch with deceased A1, that does not lead to an untoward inference, in the absence of other clinching evidence. Learned counsel for the appellant relies on the following cases:-

1. Suhail Ahmad Thokar v. National Investigation Agency¹Arising out of SLP (CRIMINAL) No.83 of 2024 dated 22.05.2026

2. Jalaluddin Khan v. Union of India., (2024) 10 SCC 574

3. Union of India v. K.A.Najeeb, (2021) 3 SCC 713

4. Thwaha Fasal v. Union of India, (2022) 14 SCC 766

5. Shoma Kanti Sen v. State of Maharastra and another., (2024) 6 SCC 591

6. Ammar Abdul Rahiman v. National Investigation Agency.⁶Crl.A.No.79 of 2024 and Crl.M.A.No.2650 of 2024 dated 06.05.2024

7. National Investigation Agency v. Ammar Abdul Rahiman⁷Criminal Appeal No.2590 of 2025 arising out of SLP(Crl.)No.12883 of 2024 dated 14.05.2025

In any event, the appellant has been in incarceration since 24.10.2022 and was denied bail earlier as well. Since there is hardly any progress as far as the trial is concerned, the appellant should be granted bail at least now.

For their part, the prosecution draws attention to various incriminating material including recovery of material from digital devices of the appellant and testimony of witnesses, including, protected witnesses. Prosecution relies on the following cases:-

1. National Investigation Agency v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali., (2019) 5 SCC 1

2. Gurwinder Singh v. State of Punjab and another., (2024) 5 SCC 403

3. Union of India v. Barakathullah Etc.¹