Back
Denies Bail to Mohamed Thalha Over in Terror Conspiracy
Introduction
The has dismissed the bail appeal of Mohamed Thalha, an accused in the October 2022 Coimbatore temple blast case, holding that a case exists under the for providing to a terror conspiracy. The division bench of Dr. Justice Anita Sumanth and Mr. Justice Sunder Mohan found that Thalha’s role in supplying the Maruti 800 car used in the explosion, along with other incriminating digital evidence and witness testimony, established the accusations against him are not untrue. In a related development, the court also impleaded the Union and State governments to secure compliance with the ’s directions for establishing exclusive special courts to try UAPA cases.
The Blast and the Alleged Conspiracy
On , a Maruti 800 car bearing registration TN-01-F-6163 was detonated in front of the Arulmigu Kottai Sangameshwarar Temple in Ukkadam, Coimbatore, killing the driver, Jamesha Mubeen (A1). The took over the probe and charged Thalha (A3) with offences under , along with provisions of the and the . The prosecution alleged that Thalha, a used car dealer, purchased the vehicle on for ₹21,000 and handed it over to the deceased conspirator the same day, without completing registration formalities. This, the NIA argued, was part of a larger plot to target Hindu temples during Diwali 2023, inspired by ISIS ideology.
Dueling Narratives: Business Deal or Terror Plot?
Counsel for Thalha, , maintained that the car sale was a routine business transaction and that the appellant had no knowledge of its intended use. He pointed to inconsistencies in witness statements and argued that mere possession of radical content on digital devices, or ideological sympathy, does not constitute an offence under the UAPA. Supporting this stance, he cited precedents including and , where bail was granted despite the accused’s association with banned outfits.
The prosecution, led by , countered with a web of incriminating material. A protected witness (LW.99) testified about a meeting on at a
kabristan
(graveyard) where Thalha, the deceased A1, and others discussed a
"big plan against Kafirs and their places of worship."
This narrative was corroborated by a message from A1 to Thalha on the same date – "In Kabrsthan" – recovered from Thalha’s digital device. Additionally, the device contained images of the ISIS flag, the blast vehicle, and videos extolling jihad, including material from the pro-ISIS Al-Ghuraba media center.
Case Establishes Conspiracy, Not Mere Sympathy
In its detailed analysis, the High Court distinguished Thalha’s case from the judgments he relied upon. The bench observed that unlike the accused in
Shoma Kanti Sen
or
Suhail Ahmad Thokar
, Thalha’s involvement was not limited to passive association or digital propaganda. The court noted:
"We are left in no doubt that the appellant was part of the larger conspiracy, and this finds
support from the testimony of L.W.99 who speaks of being part of a discussion with deceased A1 and the appellant on 15.06.2022 for carrying out violent acts against kafirs (non-believers) and their places of worship (temples)."
The meeting, occurring five days before the car purchase and critically supported by the digital footprint, coupled with the supply of the vehicle on the same day it was acquired, demonstrated a conscious act of . The court further held that the digital evidence of ISIS imagery and messaging, while not alone sufficient, reinforced the
conclusion under .
A Footnote on Justice: Urging Swift Trial and Special Courts
While dismissing the bail appeal, the court expressed concern about the pace of trial. Observing that Thalha has been in custody since and his bail rejected twice, the bench noted:
"The pace and progress of the trial of matters relating to the
has necessarily to be improved such that the disposal is, as far as possible, within one year from filing of charge sheet."
It then proceeded to implead the Secretary, , and the Additional Chief Secretary (Home) of Tamil Nadu, seeking compliance with the ’s orders in
. Citing the high pendency of 39 cases at the , the bench directed the constitution of two exclusive UAPA courts in Tamil Nadu, with a compliance report due by .
Key Observations from the Bench
-
On the nature of Thalha’s role:
"The appellant has admittedly supplied the vehicle that was used in the bomb blast. Though he argues that he was unaware of the use to which it was intended to be put to, the overall circumstances... persuade us that there are that the accusations against the appellant are not, , untrue."
-
On distinguishing precedents:
"In all the cases discussed, the of the accused in those matters are distinguishable from the present case... Not so in the present matter. Hence, reference to the cases is of no avail to the appellant."
Final Decision and Implications
The dismissed the criminal appeal, upholding the Special Court’s order rejecting bail. However, the judgment’s lasting impact may lie in its emphatic call for expeditious trial and institutional reform – a rare instance where a bail denial order also serves as a vehicle to push for systemic change in the handling of national security cases. The matter stands listed for further compliance on .
