In a recent landmark decision, the Supreme Court of India has ruled on the default bail granting for the accused respondent in a high-profile case. The case, involving multiple accused persons including the respondent, has garnered national attention. The Court’s judgment brings clarity to the legal proceedings and highlights the importance of upholding justice in complex cases. This decision marks a crucial milestone in the ongoing legal battle and sets a precedent for future legal proceedings.
Facts
- Case registered after the brutal murder of Sasikumar, spokesperson of Hindu Front.
- Central Government assigned investigation to NIA under NIA Act.
- Accused respondent arrested on 25 December 2017.
- High Court granted statutory bail to accused respondent on 12 September 2018.
- Other accused persons also granted bail during different stages of investigation.
- Charge-sheet filed against all accused on 7 April 2018/21 June 2018, pending framing of charges.
- Special Public Prosecutor submitted report under UAP Act for extension of detention of accused respondent.
- Violence broke out in Coimbatore post the murder, leading to numerous registered cases.
- Report filed to invoke additional sections during investigation.
- The Special Court(NIA) recorded satisfaction for detention of the accused respondent for a further 90 days.
- The petition filed by Special Public Prosecutor under NIA Act was allowed by the Special Court on 22 March, 2018.
- Accused respondent appealed against the Special Court’s order to the High Court of Madras under Section 21 of NIA Act.
- High Court of Madras granted bail to the accused/respondent on 12 September, 2018, setting aside the Special Court’s order.
- High Court held that the remand of the accused/respondent for 90 days was not in compliance with Section 43D(2)(b) of UAP Act, 1967.
Also Read: Judgment: Dispute Resolution in Infrastructure Contracts
Arguments
- The detention of the accused respondent may have been necessary for further progress of the investigation at a certain point in time.
- However, with the filing of the charge-sheet against all four accused persons, and the granting of bail to accused no.1, accused no.2, and accused no.3 by the competent Court, the situation has changed.
- Prosecution did not file any application for cancellation of bail for accused nos.1 to 3.
- The present accused respondent is also on bail, possibly in compliance with the impugned judgment.
- There is no allegation from the appellant that the accused respondent has breached or violated the conditions of the bail granted to him after the statutory bail.
Also Read: Supreme Court Judgment: SAIL vs. Ispat Khadan Janta Mazdoor Union
Analysis
- The accused persons have moved to different states to avoid law enforcement.
- Further police custody is needed for investigation under Section 43D(2)(b) of UA(P) Act 1967.
- Evidence like mobile phones, DVDs/CDs, memory cards, and documents have been seized and are being analyzed.
- CDRs of mobile phones are being obtained for analysis.
- Detailed interrogation is required to unravel the larger conspiracy behind the crime.
- There is a threat to national security if detailed investigation is not conducted.
- Witnesses are at high risk of being eliminated for speaking the truth.
- Investigation spans across 5 states and involves numerous witnesses, suspects, and evidence.
- NIA is seeking protection under Section 17 of the NIA Act, 2008 to complete investigation without delay.
- Analysis of social media and email communications is ongoing, including MLAT requests to the USA.
- Accused was initially arrested on 25 December, 2017, and detention extension was approved by the Special Court.
- Seized electronic gadgets have been forwarded for examination and analysis.
- The scope of Section 43D(2)(b) of UAP Act, 1967 was recently examined by a three Judge Bench.
- Investigation progress is in the right direction but cannot be completed within the 90-day period.
- Section 167 of the Code shall apply in relation to a case involving an offence punishable under this Act.
- Modifications: references to time periods adjusted to ‘thirty days’, ‘ninety days’, and ‘ninety days’.
- Court may extend the investigation period up to one hundred and eighty days if not completed in ninety days.
- Police officer must provide an affidavit stating reasons for requesting police custody from judicial custody.
- The Public Prosecutor provided specific reasons fulfilling the requirements of Section 43D(2)(b) of the UAP Act, 1967 for the detention of the accused respondent.
- The Special Court considered the reasons in detail and granted detention for a further 90 days.
- However, due to changed circumstances with regards to FIR (Cr. No. 735/2016) registered at Thudialur Police Station, Coimbatore, where charge-sheets have been filed against all accused, including the respondent, the High Court’s decision to grant default bail was upheld.
- Accused Nos. 1, 2, and 3 are already on bail, and the respondent has not violated any conditions while on bail.
- While not agreeing with the High Court’s conclusions, the Supreme Court decided not to interfere with the grant of default bail considering the latest developments.
- The prosecution has the option to apply for cancellation of bail if any exigency arises in the future.
Also Read: Dismissal Upheld in Disciplinary Proceedings of CISF Constable
Decision
- The appeal is disposed of in the terms mentioned.
- The learned Presiding Officer of the Special Court, NIA, is directed to expedite and conclude the trial by March, 2020.
- A compliance report should be sent to the Registry of the Court.
Case Title: UNION OF INDIA Vs. MUBARAK @ MOHAMMED MUBARAK
Case Number: Crl.A. No.-000865-000865 / 2019
