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

2021 Supreme(SC) 46

N. V. RAMANA, SURYA KANT, ANIRUDDHA BOSE
Union of India – Appellant
Versus
K. A. Najeeb – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. B. V. Balaram Das, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Ramesh Babu M. R., AOR

Judgement Key Points

The main conclusion of this case is that, although statutory restrictions like Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA generally limit the grant of bail, these provisions do not completely bar the possibility of granting bail by constitutional courts, especially when there is a significant delay in trial and the period of incarceration already suffered exceeds a substantial part of the prescribed sentence. The courts are expected to balance the legislative intent with constitutional rights, particularly the right to a speedy trial and personal liberty, by considering the practical realities of the case. In this particular instance, due to the lengthy incarceration and the unlikelihood of the trial being completed in the near future, the court found it appropriate to enlarge the respondent on bail, while imposing certain conditions to safeguard societal interests and the integrity of the trial process.


ORDER :

Surya Kant, J.

Leave Granted.

2. The present appeal has been preferred by the Union of India through the National Investigation Agency (in short, “NIA”) against an order dated 23.07.2019 of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam, whereby bail was granted to the respondent for an offence under Sections 143, 147, 148, 120B, 341, 427, 323, 324, 326, 506(H), 201, 202, 153A, 212, 307, 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”), Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and Sections 16, 18, 18B, 19 and 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (“UAPA”).

FACTS

3. The prosecution case in brief is that one Professor TJ Joseph while framing the Malayalam question paper for the second semester B.Com. examination at the Newman College, Thodupuzha, had included a question which was considered objectionable against a particular religion by certain sections of society. The respondent in association with other members of the Popular Front of India (PFI), decided to avenge this purported act of blasphemy. On 04.07.2010 at about 8AM, a group of people with a common object, attacked the victim-professor while he was returning home with his mother and sister after attending Sunday


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
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top