Case Based On Suspicion And Confession Statement: Madras High Court Grants Bail To Man Charged Under UAPA

There was no complaint from any person and nobody was injured in this case. Therefore, in the opinion of this court, the provisions of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act have been included only in order to deny/delay the appellant from getting bail from the court.

The appellant was apprehended by the police under suspicious circumstances. He later confessed that he was deputed by one Bakrudeen, President of Indian Muslim Development Association to kill one Kumaresan. The said Kumaresan had objected to his son marrying Sahanaazmi, daughter of Rajamohammed and Noor Nisha of Tiruvarur. Since Kumaresan had objected to his son renouncing Hindu religion and embracing Islam, the parents of the girl and sought the help of Bakrudeen to kill Kumaresan so that his son could embrace Islam and also to send across a lesson in future to prevent others to marry Islam people and change them to Hinduism.

Based on the appellant's confession, four others were arrested and three long sized bill hooks were recovered. The appellant was charged for offences under the Indian Penal Code, Criminal Law Amendment Act, Arms Act and the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act. The appellant moved for bail three times and all three petitions were rejected. The present appeal was against the third bail petition.

The appellant had contended that the allegations were false and that he was arrested merely for his active involvement in the whatsapp group namely "Indian Muslim Development Association" in Trichy. It was further submitted that the appellant was called to commissioner's office without any summon and was illegaly detained and brutally harassed. The appellant also highlighted that he did not have any antecedents.

The prosecution denied the case of false implication. It was submitted that there were materials to show that the appellant was likely to tamper evidence, if enlarged on bail. The prosecution submitted that though the appellant did not have any antecedents, the offences involved in the present case were grave and likely to incite communal violence. As per the settled law, the appellant was not entitled to bail for involvement in heinous offences.

The court noted that while considering bail application for offences falling under Chapter IV of the UAPA Act, the court had to first form an opinion as to whether there was a prima facie case against the accused.

In the present case, the court noted that the motive attributed to the appellant had two limbs, first to remove the hindrance in conversion and second to threat other section of people not to collide with Islam. These motives however could not meet at any point. The modus operandi of the appellant could have been a secret if his intention was to kill Kumaresan and would have been open if the intention was to send a message.

From the perusal of the case diary and the materials available, other than the appellants and the other accused having been arrested based on suspicion and their confession being recorded while in custody and recovery of Bill Hooks from the other accused, there is no other material to pin point that the appellant and other accused had intended to commit the murder of Kumaresan and to create terror and fear among the public and people of other section.

The court had also noted that no offence had taken place and no complaint was actually made by Kumaresan. The entire case was merely on the suspicion that arose in the mind of a police officer while doing his routine rounds. The court was therefore convinced that there was no prima facie case against the appellant.

taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case in the light of the decisions referred to above and a perusal of the case diary, this court is of the opinion that the allegations against the appellant do not fall within the definition of "Terrorist Act" and there are no reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against the appellant is prima facie true.

Thus, the court granted bail to the appellant while also emphasising that the observations made in the judgment were only with respect to the application for bail and that the special court may not be influenced by the same.

Case Title: Sadam Hussain v. State and another

Case No: Criminal Appeal No.597 of 2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 373

Counsel for the Appellant: Mr.S.M.A.Jinnah

Counsel for the Respondents: Mr.Babu Muthumeeran, Additional Public Prosecutor (R1), Mr.R.Karthikeyan, Special Public Prosecutor for NIA (R2)