SEKAR REPORTER

Court News from Madras High Court

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA Before parting with, we make it clear that the observations and findings recorded in this judgment are only for the limited purpose of considering the application for bail and the Special Court shall not be influenced by the same during the trial or while rendering its decision.

by ·

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

 

Reserved on : 11.8.2022

 

Delivered  on :26.8.2022

 

CORAM

 

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN

AND

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA

Criminal Appeal No.226 of 2022

 

Noorudeen @ Rafi @ Ismail                                          Appellant

 

 

State rep by

The Deputy Superintendent of Police,

National Investigation Agency,

Chennai.                                                             Respondent

 

Criminal Appeal filed under Section 21 of National Investigation Agency Act to set aside the order dated 10.2.2022 passed by the Special Court under the National Investigation Agency Act (Sessions Court for Exclusive Trial of Bomb Blast Cases), Poonamallee, Chennai 600 056 in Crl.M.P.No.499 of 2021 in C.C.No.1 of 2018.

 

 

For Appellant    : Mr.R.Sankarasubbu

 

For Respondent : Mr.R.Karthikeyan,

Special Public Prosecutor for NIA cases

 

JUDGMENT

S.VAIDYANATHAN, J.

and

A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA,J.

 

The Appeal has been filed seeking to set aside the order dated 10.2.2022 passed by the Special Court under the National Investigation Agency Act (Sessions Court for Exclusive Trial of Bomb Blast Cases), Poonamallee, Chennai 600 056 in Crl.M.P.No.499 of 2021 in C.C.No.1 of 2018.

  1. Brief facts of the case as elicited from the materials available on record are as under:-
  2. i) On the basis of a Special Report of the Inspector of Police, ‘Q’ Branch CID, Chennai City regarding commission of offences related to a threat emanating from a live conspiracy to smuggle explosives and terrorists into India from Sri Lanka and execute bomb attacks at the US Consulate in Chennai, Israel Consulate in Bangalore, other vital installations and places of public congregation in Southern India, a case was originally registered in FIR No.1 of 2014 of ‘Q’ Branch CID, Chennai City dated 28.4.2014 under Sections 16, 17, 18 and 20 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and Sections 120(B), 34, 124(A) and 489(C) IPC against the appellant and others.
  3. ii) Considering the gravity of the offences, the National Investigation Agency had taken over the investigation of the case and re-registered the case as RC No.2 of 2014/NIA/HYD on 20.6.2014 for offences under Sections 16, 17, 18 and 20 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and Sections 120(B), 34, 124(A) and 489(C). Initially, the respondent had filed a final report against some of the accused. The charge against them was that A1 Sakir Hussaien came into contact with A2 Amir  Zubair Siddiqui, who was  working as High  Counselor at Pakistan High Commission in Colombo through one Veerakone a Sri Lankan Intelligence Official and they have entered into a conspiracy to do espionage work in India and to plant explosives in strategic locations in India.  In the course of the transaction, the other accused, some of them who are Indians, are alleged to have helped them in transporting and dealing with high quality fake Indian Currency notes into India to destabilize the economic security of the nation.

iii) A1 Sakir Hussaien pleaded guilty and he was convicted and sentenced  to undergo simple imprisonment for 2 years under Section 120B read with Section 16 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, simple imprisonment for 5 years and fine of Rs.1000/- under Section 16 of  Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, simple imprisonment for 5 years and fine of Rs.1000/- under Section 18 of  Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act as per the the judgment dated 28.11.2014 in C.C.No.5/2014 by this Court. After completion of sentence, he was later deported to his own country (Sri Lanka).

  1. iv) Later, the case was split up as C.C.No.10 of 2014 against A5 Sivabalan and A6 Mohammed Salim. During trial, A5 Sivabalan filed a petition in Crl.M.P.No.414 of 2015 in C.C.No.10 of 2014 to record his statement and seeking pardon under Section 306 and 307 Cr.P.C. and accordingly, he was granted pardon by order dated 14.3.2017 in Crl.M.P.No.414  of 2015.
  2. v) Subsequently, the trial against A6 Mohammed Saleem continued and he was found guilty and convicted and sentenced under section 235(2) of Cr.P.C. to undergo simple imprisonment for 2 years  under section 120B read with section 489C IPC, simple imprisonment for 5 years and fine of Rs.1000/-  under Section 16 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, simple imprisonment for 5 years and fine of Rs.1000/-  under Section 18 of  Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, simple imprisonment for 2 years under Section 489C read with Section 34 IPC as per the judgment dated 30.6.2018 in C.C.No.10 of 2014 by the Special Court.
  3. vi) Subsequently, as per the orders passed by the Special Court in Crl.M.P.No.522 of 2014 dated 1.11.2014, further investigation was conducted and supplementary charge sheet was filed against Amir Zubair Siddiqui A2, Balasubramanian @ Balu @ Balan A4 and Noorudeen @ Rafi Ismail A7 the appellant herein and subsequently, the appellant was arrested on 17.7.2014 while he was already in prison in some other case.

vii) During the investigation, the appellant was found to be a habitual trafficker of high quality counterfeit Indian currency notes,  along with one Mohammad Saleem, a co-accused and he had arranged  for the high quality counterfeit Indian currency notes to the other accused knowing that his act of trafficking the same were likely to threaten the economic security of India  and thereby, the appellant had become a party in person to the criminal conspiracy hatched along with the other accused in India, Srilanka and other places.

viii) The appellant was enlarged on statutory bail by the  Special Court of NIA cases vide order dated 10.2.2015 in Crl.M.P.No.91 of 2015.

  1. ix) While so, since the appellant did not turn up before the Special Court for the hearing of the case, summons were issued on various dates and since he did not turn even for that, the Special Court had issued Non Bailable Warrant of arrest against him on 21.12.2020. However, it could not be executed.  Meanwhile, he was arrested by G2 Periamet Police Station of Greater Chennai Police in Crime No.151 of 2021 dated 21.5.2021 under Section 392 IPC and while he was in prison, he was produced before the Special Court on PT Warrant on 5.7.2021 and the appellant was remanded under Section 309 Cr.P.C. and the trial as on date is pending for framing of charges against the appellant.
  2. x) The appellant had filed Crl.M.P.No.499 of 2021 seeking bail and the same was dismissed by the Special Court invoking Section 43D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act finding “prima facie” case as against the appellant. Assailing the order of dismissal and  craving indulgence of this court, he had filed the present Criminal Appeal.
  3. The crux of the submissions of Mr.R.Sankarasubbu, learned counsel appearing for the appellant is as under:-
  4. i) The appellant had the benefit of bail granted by the Special Court itself and it was in force and had not been cancelled. During the pandemic situation, the appellant fell ill and he could not appear before the Special Court on 21.12.2020 and the Trial Court had issued Non Bailable Warrant. Later,  he was falsely implicated and arrested and remanded to judicial custody in G2 Periyamet Police Station in Crime No.151 of 2021 on 21.5.2021 and later produced on PT Warrant and remanded to judicial custody under Section 309 Cr.P.C.  The non appearance of the appellant before the Special Court was neither wilful nor wanton but, due to unavoidable reason and when the bail already granted in favour of the appellant is in effect and when it has not been cancelled, the Special Court without affording opportunity and seeking an explanation for non appearance had erred in converting the PT Warrant as a regular warrant and committed an illegality in remanding the appellant without passing a reasoned order and sending the appellant to judicial custody.
  5. ii) Sec.309(2) Cr.P.C. merely enables the court to “remand the accused if in custody“, it does not empower the court to remand the accused if he is on bail and it does not enable the court to “cancel bail” as it where. When an accused person has been granted regular bail on merits or under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C, cancellation of bail can be done only under Section 437(5) and under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C.,. or under the provisions of Chapter XXXIII. Whereas the Special Court had without following due process had remanded the appellant.  In support of his contention, the learned counsel would rely on the decision of the Apex court in  Raghubir Singh and others vs. State of Bihar (1986) 4 SCC 481.

iii) Before remanding the appellant, the Special Court ought to have heard him and recorded reasons thereof, however, in the case on hand,  absolutely no reasons have been stated by the Special Court in the remand order.

  1. iv) The appellant is in custody from 5.7.2021 for the past one year and there is no progress in the trial and though the appellant may be held responsible for the earlier delay in trial, he cannot be held responsible for the delay from 5.7.2021 and there is no progress in trial.
  2. v) The appellant, having already enured the benefit of statutory bail, the Special Court erred in invoking Section 43D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act for dismissing the bail application.
  3. vi) The Special Court erred in finding that two of the accused have been convicted in the case and thereby “prima facie” case is made out as against the appellant.  The other two convicted accused stand on different footing  since they are the main conspirators, who are alleged to have conspired and planned to execute Bomb attacks in various important places and even as per the prosecution, there is no serious allegation against the appellant.  The appellant has been roped in not because of any activity directly attracting major offences in this case, but, he has been roped in only by virtue of Section 120B IPC for having helped the other accused by supplying counterfeit currency notes to them and based on the confession statements recorded and further there is absolutely no recovery from the appellant.

vii) The other accused have been convicted and sentenced for a maximum period of five years and that the appellant, though granted statutory bail on 10.2.2015 in Crl.M.P.No.91 of 2015 and having furnished sureties  on 11.2.2015 itself, he could come out on bail only on 1.8.2019 and thereby he had already been in jail for more than four years.

viii) There are several witnesses on the side of the prosecution  and thereby the likelihood of the trial being completed at the earliest is also remote and bleak and once it is obvious that timely conclusion of trial would not be possible and the accused has already suffered incarceration for significant period of time, court should be obligated to enlarge the appellant on bail.

  1. ix) The presence of statutory restrictions like the provision under Section 43-D(5) of the the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, per se, does not oust the ability of the constitutional courts to grant bail on grounds of violation of Part III of the Constitution, which would cover within its protective ambit not only due procedure and fairness but also access to justice and a speedy trial. In this case, the Special Court has not followed the due procedure while remanding the appellant to judicial custody and the Special Court had also not considered the period of incarceration of the accused.  In support of his contention, the learned counsel has relied on the decision  of the decisions in Ashim @ Asim Kumar Haranath vs. National Investigation Agency (2021) SCC OnLine SC 1156 and Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb (2021) 3 SCC 713.
  2. The respondent has filed a detailed counter.
  3. Mr.R.Karthikeyan, learned Special Public Prosecutor for NIA cases, while vehemently opposing for grant of bail to the appellant, strenuously argued that the appellant is a habitual trafficker of high quality counterfeit Indian currency notes causing threat to the economic security of India thereby the acts of the appellant falling within the ambit of Section 15(1)(iii) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. He would further submit that the appellant,taking advantage of the personal liberty granted by the Special Court, had been indulging in similar offences  posing more threat to economic security of the nation.  He would submit that when the appellant has been remanded under section 309 Cr.P.C. he has to seek only regular bail and the Special Court, while considering the regular bail application, by invoking Section 43D(5) and having found prima facie  case as against the appellant, had dismissed the Application.  He would also submit that the appellant was granted statutory bail on 10.2.2015 itself by the Special Court, however, he could come out on bail only on 1.8.2019 as he was in custody in respect of other cases pending against him and the appellant having been granted statutory bail and having executed sureties, cannot claim that he was in continued detention and the fact remains that after coming out on bail, the appellant had indulged in offences of similar nature whereby the cases are pending against him in various Police Stations. He  had furnished the details of the antecedents of the appellants as under:-
Sl.No. Police Station Crime No. & legal provision Bail details Stage of the case
1. R-1 Mambalam PS 1210/2007 – Sec.420 IPC In bail Convicted on 14.3.2008
2. H-8 Thiruvottriyur PS 768/2009 – Sec.397 @ 395, 397, 120B IPC In bail Pending Trial PRC No.13/2017 (Fresh Summon stage)
3. CCB Chennai. 343/2010 – Sec.419, 420, 465, 486 & 471 IPC In bail Pending Trial CC No.7171/2017 (Fresh Summon stage)
4. Periyapalayam PS 370/2011 – Sec.392 IPC In bail Pending Trial PRC No.4/2012
5. CCB, Chennai Team – 33A (Forgery Investigation Wing) 447/2012 – Sec.489(b)& (c) IPC In bail Under investigation
6. Cholavaram PS 337/2013 – Sec.294(b) 324, 302 IPC In bail Pending Trial in C.C.No.2/2015
7. Kodungaiyur PS (now transferred to CCB-27, Chennai Forgery Investigation Wing) 133/2013 – Sec.489 B & C IPC In bail Under Investigation
8. Seven Wells PS 1146/2013 – Sec.341, 336, 427, 397, 506(ii) IPC Acquittal Acquitted on 15.6.2015.
9. CBCID CC Wing 2/2014 – Sec.489 B &  C, 120B IPC r/w 25(1B)(A), 29(A), (B) of Arms Act 1959, Sec.15(1)(A) (IIA) r/w 16(1)(B) and 18, 20 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (Act 3 of 2013) In bail Pending Trial in C.C.No.49/2014 on the file of V Addl. Sessions Court, Chennai. (IO stage)
10. B1 North Beach PS 334/2019 – Sec.448, 342, 392, 397, 506(ii) IPC r/w 120B IPC In bail Under investigation
11. M8, Sathangadu PS 2451/2020 – Sec.294(b), 324, 506(ii) IPC Formal arrest and accused in bail Under investigation
12. G2 Periamet PS 81/2021 – Sec.392 IPC In statutory bail Under investigation
13. G2 Periamet PS 151/2021 – Sec.294(b), 397, 506(ii) IPC (detained under Act 14 of 1982) In statutory bail Under investigation

 

  1. By enlisting the above 13 previous cases of various offences including one under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act pending against the appellant, the learned Special Public Prosecutor would submit that prima face case has been made out against the appellant and the trial in the present case is about to commence and if he is released on bail, it would be very difficult to secure his presence. He would further submit that the delay in completion of trial is not due to the prosecution alone, but, the appellant is also responsible for the same and therefore, considering the gravity of the offences committed by him and the antecedents, his plea for bail is liable to be rejected.   However, he would submit that as far as this case is concerned, there is no recovery against him and in respect of other cases is concerned, there are recoveries of fake currency notes from him.
  2. In reply, Mr.Sankarasubbu, learned counsel for the appellant would submit that though the appellant is said to have involved in 13 other cases, in one case in Crime No.1146 of 2013 on the file of the Sevel Wells Police Station, he had been acquitted on 15.6.2015 itself and out of the other 12 cases, in one case in Crime No.1210 of 2007 on the file of R1 Mambalam Police Station, he was convicted and he had already undergone the sentence and in respect of other remaining 11 cases, he is on bail and such bails have not been cancelled. He would further submit that the appellant is prepared to furnish adequate security, including security of his family members for his release on bail and is ready to abide by any stringent conditions that may be imposed by this court.
  3. This Court called for a report from the State of Tamilnadu and status reports were filed by the State and it is reported by the Learned Addl Public Prosecutor that the bails granted to the appellant in the other cases have not been cancelled.

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the materials available on record including the Case Diary.

  1. The appellant stands charged for the offences  under Sections  16,  17,  18  and  20  of  the  Unlawful  Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and Sections 120(B), 34, 124(A) and 489(C) IPC.    It is not in dispute that in the instant case the appellant was already released on statutory bail by the Special Court by its order dated 10.2.2015 in Crl.M.P.No.91 of 2015.    As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant, such bail order has not been cancelled.    While  so, the  appellant  had  been regularly appearing before the court and  that he did not appear before the Special Court on 21.12.2020 and the Special Court had issued non-bailable warrant.  Subsequently, the appellant had been arrested in a case registered by G2 Periamet Police Station in Crime No.151/2021 on 21.5.2021 and while he was in prison, he was produced on PT Warrant  before  the  Special Court  and had been remanded to judicial custody under Section 309 Cr.P.C.
  2. This court perused the order of remand passed by the Special Court under Section 309 Cr.P.C. on 5.7.2021, which reads as under:-

“05-07-2021

A2 Noorudeen @ Rafi @ Ismail produced on P.T. Warrant from Central Prison, Trichy.  Copies furnished to the accused u/s.207 Cr.P.C. at free of cost. He is having sufficient means to engage a Counsel to defend his case.  Free legal aid explained to him.  Remanded till 19.07.2021 u/s.309 of Cr.P.C.”

  1. Subsequently, the appellant has filed Crl.M.P.No.499 of 2021 seeking bail, however, the Special Court, considering the antecedents of the appellant and finding “prima facie” case against him based on the fact that the co-accused were found guilty and attributing the delay in conclusion of trial to the appellant and by invoking Section 43D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, had rejected the plea for grant of bail.
  2. At the outset, as far as the present case is concerned, the appellant has been granted statutory bail and the fact remains that the bail has not been cancelled. However, the Special Court had remanded the appellant under Section 309 Cr.P.C.  In this regard, it is useful to refer to the following paragraphs from the decision of a Division Bench of the Apex Court in Raghubir Singh and others vs. State of Bihar (1986) 4 SCC 481:-

“20. …… The accused person may yet take advantage of the order for release on bail by producing a fresh, acceptable surety. The argument of the learned counsel for the State of Bihar was that the order for release on bail stood extinguished on the remand of the accused to custody under Section 309(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. There is no substance whatever in this submission. Section 309(2) merely enables the court to “remand the accused if in custody”. It does not empower the court to remand the accused if he is on bail. It does not enable the court to “cancel bail” as it were. That can only be done under Section 437(5) and Section 439(2). When an accused person is granted bail, whether under the proviso to Section 167(2) or under the provisions of Chapter XXXIII the only way the bail may be cancelled is to proceed under Section 437(5) or Section 439(2).

….. ….. …..

  1. The result of our discussion and the case-law is this : An order for release on bail made under the proviso to Section 167(2) is not defeated by lapse of time, the filing of the charge-sheet or by remand to custody under Section 309(2).”
  2. In the case on hand, the Special Court, finding that A1 has pleaded guilty, A5 Sivabalan had been granted pardon and A6 Mohammed Saleem has been found guilty after a full-fledged trial, had found prima facie case as against the appellant. However, it is the case of the appellant that he stands on a different footing than that of the accused, who have been found guilty and convicted. The case of the appellant is that he had been roped in this case only based on the confession that he had arranged for the high quality counterfeit Indian currency notes to the other accused and apart from that there is no allegation against him for having done espionage work or having conspired to plant bombs in strategic locations and that absolutely no recovery has been made from him.
  3. In short, the case of the appellant is that the gravity of the allegation against him is lesser that that of other accused, who have been found guilty and convicted and sentenced with imprisonment for a maximum period of five years. Further, it is the case of the appellant that he has been in duress for a long time since he was able to furnish surety at a later point of tie and had come out on bail after some time.  It is also the case of the appellant that though the delay in conducting the trial may be attributed to the appellant prior to his arrest, he is not responsible for the delay after his arrest and that he has been in prison for almost a year without there being any progress in trial and that in toto he had been in prison for more than 4 years. In this regard, it is useful to refer the following judgments.
  4. A Full Bench of the Apex Court in Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb (2021) 3 SCC 713, has held as under:-

“17. It is thus clear to us that the presence of statutory restrictions like Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA per se does not oust the ability of the constitutional courts to grant bail on grounds of violation of Part III of the Constitution. Indeed, both the restrictions under a statute as well as the powers exercisable under constitutional jurisdiction can be well harmonised. Whereas at commencement of proceedings, the courts are expected to appreciate the legislative policy against grant of bail but the rigours of such provisions will melt down where there is no likelihood of trial being completed within a reasonable time and the period of incarceration already undergone has exceeded a substantial part of the prescribed sentence. Such an approach would safeguard against the possibility of provisions like Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA being used as the sole metric for denial of bail or for wholesale breach of constitutional right to speedy trial.

  1. Adverting to the case at hand, we are conscious of the fact that the charges levelled against the respondent are grave and a serious threat to societal harmony. Had it been a case at the threshold, we would have outrightly turned down the respondent’s prayer. However, keeping in mind the length of the period spent by him in custody and the unlikelihood of the trial being completed anytime soon, the High Court appears to have been left with no other option except to grant bail. An attempt has been made to strike a balance between the appellant’s right to lead evidence of its choice and establish the charges beyond any doubt and simultaneously the respondent’s rights guaranteed under Part III of our Constitution have been well protected.
  2. Yet another reason which persuades us to enlarge the respondent on bail is that Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA is comparatively less stringent than Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Unlike the NDPS Act where the competent court needs to be satisfied that prima facie the accused is not guilty and that he is unlikely to commit another offence while on bail; there is no such precondition under UAPA. Instead, Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA merely provides another possible ground for the competent court to refuse bail, in addition to the well-settled considerations like gravity of the offence, possibility of tampering with evidence, influencing the witnesses or chance of the accused evading the trial by absconsion, etc.
  3. In light of the above discussion, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. However, we feel that besides the conditions to be imposed by the trial court while releasing the respondent, it would serve the best interest of justice and the society at large to impose some additional conditions that the respondent shall mark his presence every week on Monday at 10 a.m. at the local police station and inform in writing that he is not involved in any other new crime. The respondent shall also refrain from participating in any activity which might enrage communal sentiments. In case the respondent is found to have violated any of his bail conditions or attempted to have tampered the evidence, influence witnesses, or hamper the trial in any other way, then the Special Court shall be at liberty to cancel his bail forthwith. The appeal is accordingly dismissed subject to the abovestated directions.”
  4. Deprivation of personal liberty of the accused without ensuring speedy trial has been dealt with by the Apex Court in Ashim @ Asim Kumar Haranath vs. National Investigation Agency (2021) SCC OnLine SC 1156, wherein it has held as under:-

“10. This Court has consistently observed in its numerous judgments that the liberty guaranteed in Part III of the Constitution would cover within its protective ambit not only due procedure and fairness but also access to justice and a speedy trial is imperative and the undertrials cannot indefinitely be detained pending trial. Once it is obvious that a timely trial would not be possible and the accused has suffered incarceration for a significant period of time, the courts would ordinarily be obligated to enlarge him on bail.

  1. Deprivation of personal liberty without ensuring speedy trial is not consistent with Article 21 of the Constitution of India. While deprivation of personal liberty for some period may not be avoidable, period of deprivation pending trial/appeal cannot be unduly long. At the same time, timely delivery of justice is part of human rights and denial of speedy justice is a threat to public confidence in the administration of justice.“
  2. The law is well settled that in case where the accused is on bail in non-bailable offence and did not appear on hearing date and non bailable warrant is issued, on appearance of the accused or on his production by police through PT warrant, opportunity should be given to the accused to explain his non appearance and decide as to whether to let him off by recalling the warrant or to cancel the bail by recording reasons and he cannot be straightway remanded to judicial custody as a PT warrant can never be converted into a regular warrant in a case where the accused person is already on bail.
  3. As stated above, the appellant is in custody for more than a year without any progress in trial. Further, the gravity of offence as against the appellant is also comparatively lesser than that of the other accused, who have been found guilty and convicted. In this case, the appellant has been implicated based on the confession statements and no recovery has been effected from the appellant. Taking into consideration, the totality of the circumstances, this court is of the opinion that the continued detention of the appellant is in violation of his right of personal liberty and the appellant is entitled to grant of bail subject to imposition of certain stringent conditions.
  4. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed and the order dated 10.2.2022 passed by the Special Court under the National Investigation Agency Act (Sessions Court for Exclusive Trial of Bomb Blast Cases), Poonamallee, Chennai 600 056 in Crl.M.P.No.499 of 2021 in C.C.No.1 of 2018 is set aside.
  5. The appellant is ordered to be released on bail

(a) on executing a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only)  with two sureties each for a likesum to the satisfaction of  the Special Court under the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (Sessions Court for Exclusive Trial of Bomb Blast Cases), Poonamallee, Chennai.

(b) One such surety shall be the wife of the appellant and the other surety shall be a Government Servant.

(c) the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the learned Judge, Special Court may obtain a copy of their Aadhar Card or Bank Pass Book to ensure their identity;

(d) the appellant shall report before the Special Court on all hearing dates and before the respondent police on every Sunday at 10.30 a.m. until completion of trial in C.C.No.1 of 2018. (If the appellant has to appear for trial before any other Courts, he has to intimate the Special Court in advance).

(e) the appellant shall not leave the State of Tamil Nadu without prior permission from the Special Court.

(f) the appellant shall not commit any offences;

(g) the appellant shall not abscond during trial;

(h) the appellant shall not tamper with evidence or witness  during trial;

(i) the appellant shall furnish the Mobile Number, which shall not be changed till the issue comes to a logical end.  However, he is permitted to change the portability.

(j) the appellant shall surrender his passport, if any, to the Trial Court.  For the purpose of renewal, the original can be taken by making an application and the renewed one shall be surrendered within a week of receipt of the same;

(k) the appellant shall not travel abroad without the permission of the Court.  In case he wants to go abroad, while seeking permission, he shall furnish the address and place, where he is going to stay together with mobile number and email and if he stays in hotel, the details of the accommodation and the period of stay, mode of travel alongwith the complete itinerary shall be furnished to the Trial Court as well as Police.

(l) on breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Judge, Special Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the appellant in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the appellant released on bail by the learned Judge, Special Court himself as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560];

(m) if the appellant thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229A IPC.

(n) The Special Court shall proceed further with the trial on a day to day basis in accordance with the guidelines given in Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab (AIR 2015 SC 1206).  The trial shall not be adjourned beyond seven working days at any point of time.

(o) if the appellant adopts any dilatory tactics, it is open to the Special Court to remand the appellant to custody as laid down by the judgment of the Apex Court in State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Shambhu Nath Singh (JT 2001 (4) SC 319).

 

  1. Before parting with, we make it clear that the observations and findings recorded in this judgment are only for the limited purpose of considering the application for bail and the Special Court shall not be influenced by the same during the trial or while rendering its decision.

 

(S.V.N.,J.) (A.D.J.C.,J.)

26.8.2022.

Index: Yes/No.

Internet: Yes/No.

ssk.

 

 

 

 

To

 

  1. Judge,

Special Court under the

National Investigation Agency Act, 2008

(Sessions Court for Exclusive Trial

of Bomb Blast Cases),

Poonamallee, Chennai 600 056

 

 

  1. The Deputy Superintendent of Police,

National Investigation Agency,

Chennai.

 

  1. The Superintendent,

Central Prison,

Tiruchirapalli.

 

  1. The Public Prosecutor,

High Court, Madras.
S.VAIDYANATHAN, J.

and

A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.

 

 

 

ssk.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

P.D. JUDGMENT IN

Criminal Appeal No.226 of 2022

 

 

 

 

 

 

Delivered on

26.8.2022.

You may also like...