UAPA Case| Kerala High Court Refuses Bail To 4th Accused Over Alleged Maoist Links

The Kerala High Court has rejected the bail plea of ​​Vijith Vijayan, the fourth accused in the UAPA case over alleged Maoist links finding that there was prima facie evidence to suggest his involvement in the terror case.  

A Division Bench of Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice C. Jayachandran observed that the general purport of the secret documents in his handwriting prima facie establishes his active participation of the accused in the organizational development and propagation of ideology, both running contrary to the established administrative machinery controlled by an elected Government.

"the questioned documents as examined by the FSL prima facie bring forth the intention of A4 to indulge actively in furtherance of the extremist ideologies of the Maoist movement."

Three young men were found under suspicious circumstances in November 2019 at around 6.15 p.m by the Pantheerankavu Police while on patrolling duty. Out of the three, one ran away and the others were apprehended under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) alleging that they were supporting proscribed Maoist groups, which have been declared terrorist organizations.

The case was later taken up by the NIA. Upon further investigation and search, more persons were arrested, the appellant herein being one of them. He was arrested in January 2021 and arraigned as the 4th accused in the case.

The first and the second accused in the case were granted bail in the case by the Supreme Court. However, the appellant's bail application was rejected by the NIA Special Court. Therefore, he filed an appeal before the Division Bench. 

Advocate K.S. Madhusoodanan appeared for the appellant and argued that there was absolutely no incriminating material connecting him to the crime. It was also argued that he had been falsely implicated in the case and that the NIA investigation had not found any evidence to prove his links to Maoist groups. 

It was also argued that even if supposedly inciting material was found in the documents and the pen drive, without establishing they were recovered from his possession, there can be no prima facie truth ferreted out from such material. 

However, ASGI S. Manu appeared for the NIA and asserted that the appellant is a member of the semi-underground cadre of the CPI(Maoist), entrusted with the task of operating and propagating the ideology in the urban areas. Several documents prepared as part of the Maoist terror operation were seized from his residence as well, some of them with his handwriting. The ASGI also produced the evidence of the handwriting expert to confirm this.

Regarding the argument that the first two accused were granted bail in the case, the Court found that it could not find any parallel between the charges alleged against accused 1 and 2 and that alleged against A4.

"The materials recovered, on search and further investigation, commend us to find prima facie truth in the allegation raised against A4, who is the appellant herein. The allegations raised are also not of mere possession of documents or presence in gatherings organized by the proscribed association. Prima facie it has to be found that the appellant was a member and occupied an important position at the organizational level; actively involved in propagating the ideology of revolt against the elected Governments and engaged in recruitment as also defining the manner in which the ideology is to be effectively implemented in society."

Further, the Bench noted that the Special Court had rejected his bail application relying on binding precedents in Zahoor Ahamad Shah Watali and Thwaha Fasal (both supra), which we cannot fault at all.

It was found that the appellant has been associated with the proscribed organization since he was an undergraduate student and continued it after his academics as well. The materials recovered indicated that he is a part of the organizational and operational activities of the proscribed movement and spearheaded the movement amongst the student community.

Therefore, the Court found no mitigating circumstance to persuade it to grant bail on that count. However, while denying bail, it was clarified that the observations made in this order were on a prima facie consideration and the same shall not regulate the trial or the final decision arrived at in trial. 

Case Title: Vijith Vijayan v. Union of India

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 252

Click Here To Read/Download The Order