'Nothing To Show His Active Involvement': Kerala High Court Grants Bail To UAPA Accused Under Judicial Custody Since 2015

The Kerala High Court on Thursday reversed an order of a Single Judge denying bail to a 67-year-old suspected Maoist undertrial charged under Section 43D(5) of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA). He was arrested in 2015 and was lodged in judicial custody since then. 

A Division Bench of Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice C. Jayachandran while granting bail to the appellant, observed: 

 "...that the accused shared the same ideology of another accused, that he was living with the other accused, that he was aware of the planning (of the attack) — prima facie there is nothing to show his active involvement."

Ibrahim was arrested in 2015 for being a part of an assailant group propounding Maoist ideology and attacking the house of a civil police officer in Wayanad in 2014.

When the NIA took over the probe, he was charged under Section 43D(5) of UAPA, which says that no person accused of an offence punishable under Chapters IV and VI of this Act shall, if in custody, be released on bail or on his own bond unless the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity of being heard on the application for such release.

The Single Judge after relying on several precedents found that going by the teeth of the rigour of Section 43D(5) of the UAPA Act, the applicant cannot be granted bail, since the allegations against him are prima facie true. 

When the matter came up for appeal, the Division Bench noted that the incriminating evidence according to the Single Judge was the evidence of the approver. According to the approver's statements, the appellant was seen carrying four bags that seemed to contain arms on the day of the incident. 

However, the Division Bench noted that apart from the fact that he was aware of the plan and that he resided with the other accused, nothing was brought to record to show the appellant's active involvement in the matter. 

Another circumstance that the Bench considered was the medical condition of the appellant, which was stated to be very critical. The appellant had suffered one Cardiac Arrest during his confinement apart from suffering from multiple ailments. 

The respondents also submitted that the trial was going on and that his release was unlikely to cause any hindrance to the day to day examination of the witnesses. 

As such, the Court deemed it appropriate to release him on bail with certain conditions, and the appeal was accordingly allowed. 

The appellant was represented by Advocates C.P Peethambaran, Mini V.A. and P.A. Shyna while 

Case Title: Ibrahim @ Babu v. Union of India

Click Here To Read/Download The Order