Madras High Court
Sathya Mary @ Padma vs State Represented By on 3 February, 2022
Author: P.N.Prakash
Bench: P.N.Prakash, R.Hemalatha
Crl.A.No.417 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 20.12.2021
PRONOUNCED ON : 03.02.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH
AND
THE HONOURABLE Mrs. JUSTICE R.HEMALATHA
Crl.A.No.417 of 2021
Sathya Mary @ Padma ... Appellant
Vs.
State represented by
Deputy Superintendent of Police
"Q" Branch CID, Dharmapuri,
Uthangarai Police Station,
Crime Nos. 1004/2002, 1005/2002,
1006/2002 and Kallavi
Police Station Crime No.434/2002 ... Respondent
Criminal Appeal filed under Section 34 (4) of POTA Act praying
to set aside the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.211 of 2021 in Spl.C.C.No.5
of 2003 dated 05.08.2021 on the file of the Special Court under the
Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA), 2002 (Sessions Court for
Exclusive Trial of Bomb Blast Cases), Poonamallee, Chennai.
For Appellant : Mr. R.Sanakarasubbu
For Respondent : Mr.R.Muniyapparaj
Additional Public Prosecutor.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/10
Crl.A.No.417 of 2021
JUDGMENT
P.N.PRAKASH, J.
The present criminal appeal is filed against the order dated 05.08.2021 in Crl.M.P.No.211 of 2011 in Spl.C.C.No.5 of 2003, wherein the bail petition of the appellant was dismissed by the Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Bomb Blast Cases, Poonamallee, Chennai (hereinafter called as “Special Court”).
2. The appellant is an accused in Spl.C.C.No.5 of 2003 before the Special Court for the offences punishable under Sections 148, 333, 307, 333 IPC read with Section 149 IPC, Section 307 IPC read with Section 149 IPC and Section 120-B IPC read with Section 3(2)(b) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002, Section 25(1B)(a) of the Arms Act, 1959 and Sections 3(3), 3(5), 4(b) and 22(1) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002. Though the appellant was enlarged on bail on 28.04.2005 with certain conditions by this Court, the appellant absconded in 2009 and ultimately, her bail was cancelled by an order dated 20.01.2017 in Cr.l.M.P.No.3631/2016, followed by initiation of action under Sections 446-A and 82 Cr.P.C. The sureties were discharged after payment of penalty and when the proclamation proceedings under https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/10 Crl.A.No.417 of 2021 Section 82 Cr.P.C. were pending, the appellant surrendered on 07.12.2018 before the Special Court and was remanded in judicial custody.
3. Mr.Sankarasubbu, learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant is sick and bedridden and is unable to do her daily routine without the help of others. He would further contend that the appellant has been in judicial custody since 2018 and therefore, prayed for enlarging her on bail.
4. Per contra, Mr.R.Muniyapparaj, learned Additional Public Prosecutor contended that the appellant went underground from the year 2009, though she was granted bail by this Court. He further contended that despite prolonged efforts, she could not be secured and only after the proclamation proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C., the appellant surrendered on 07.12.2018. He therefore prayed for dismissal of the present appeal.
5. A perusal of the report dated 04.10.2021 of the Medical Officer, Prison Hospital, Special Prison for Women, Puzhal, Chennai - 600 066 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/10 Crl.A.No.417 of 2021 shows that the appellant was admitted in Stanley Medical College Hospital, Omandurar Multispeciality Hospital and Egmore Eye Hospital as detailed hereunder :
S. Date of Date of Reason for Diagnosis & Rx given Discharge Advice No. Admission Discharge Referral
1. 10.12.2018 13.12.2018 Sinus SHT / euthyroid / old / Bland Diet Bradycardia SVT / GERD / MGE opinion & Cardiologist opinion obtained.
Details enclosed
2. 13.12.2018 15.12.2018 Superventricular SVT / Hypothyroidism / Review in tachycardia SCT - AVNRT cardiology OPD Advised to attend Omandurar Multispeciality Hosptial for EPS Study. Details Enclosed.
3. 20.12.2018 24.12.2018 Drug induced Old SVT / Systemic QTC hypertension / prolongation Hypothroidism Cardiologist (o), Neurologist (o) & Psychiatrist (o) obtained. Details Enclosed.
4. 20.12.2018 24.12.2018 Cardiologist Non Specific chest pain Opinion Stanley Troponin I- Negative Govt. Hospital CKMB - Negative Echo : No RWMA Normal LV Systolic function, stable cardiac status.
5. 20.12.2018 24.12.2018 Neuromedicine Non organic gait Opinion Stanley Abnormality CT Brain Govt. Hospital (N)
6. 20.12.2018 24.12.2018 Psychiatrist No overt Opinion Stanley Psychopathology at Govt. Hospital present.
7. 04.01.2019 07.01.2019 Omandurar Multi SVT-EPS & PFA not Get follow up from Speciality indicated cardiologist Stanley Govt.
Hospital (O) Neurophysician (O) Hospital obtained
8. 02.02.2019 Neuro Physician Opinion Stanley https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/10 Crl.A.No.417 of 2021 S. Date of Date of Reason for Diagnosis & Rx given Discharge Advice No. Admission Discharge Referral Govt. Hospital
9. 04.04.2019 09.04.2019 Chest pain RBB SHTN/ old SVT/ Cardiology OPD Hypothyroidism / SOS Stanley Alypical chest pain Hospital Endocrinologist (o) orthopedicial (o) obtained.
physiotheraphy given.
OGD scopy done.
Details enclosed
10. 04.04.2018 09.04.2019 Cardiology ECG - No ST -T Opinion Stanley Charges Govt. Hospital Echo - No RWMA (N) LV Systolic function.
EF - 62% No MR/TR Stable Cardiac status
11. 04.04.2019 09.04.2019 MGE opinion Lax LES, otherwise Stanley Govt. Normal study Hospital
12. 04.04.2019 09.04.2019 Medicine Non Cardiac Chest pain Opinion Stanley Musculoskeletal pain Govt. Hospital
13. 04.04.2019 09.04.2019 Orthopaedicain Lumbar Spondylosis Opinion Stanley Spinal muscle Govt. Hospital strengthening exercises
14. 20.04.2019 23.07.2019 Opthalmologist C/o. defective vision Opinion. Malingering tets Govt. Eye positive, advised glasses Hospital, Egmore
15. 17.07.2019 23.07.2019 Cardiology Echo No RWMA1 @ opinion Stanley CV Eystolui frimitia Govt. Hospital ECG - No Signifiant ST-
T changes
16. 21.09.2019 23.09.2019 Cardiology Recurrent SVT Govt. Stanley Advised T.Varapamil 40 Hospital mg 1-1-1-T.Metaprolol 50 mg 1/2-0-0 T.Diazepam 0-0-1
17. 26.11.2019 Cardiology Echo-No RWMA (OPD) review Normal CVEF 60% No Govt. Stanley MR/TR/VSD Normal Hospital Valvular function.
She was also given counselling by a Psychologist for complaint of sleep disorder and for her abnormal behaviour in the prison. According to the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5/10 Crl.A.No.417 of 2021 Medical Officer, the appellant was not cooperating with the doctors and also refused to take life saving drugs and even food.
6. On an earlier occasion, the bail petition filed by the appellant in Crl.M.P.No.533 of 2018 was dismissed by the Special Court on 20.12.2018 and Crl.A.No.870 of 2018 was also dismissed by this Court on 03.04.2019. Subsequently another bail petition in Crl.M.P.No.29 of 2020 was dismissed on 28.10.2020 by the Special Court and the appeal in Crl.A.No.17 of 2020 was dismissed by this Court on 17.03.2021.
7. It is true that the appellant absconded from the year 2009 and surrendered before the Special Court only on 07.12.2018. It is the contention of Mr.R.Sankarasubbu that during the period of abscondance also, there is no material to show that the appellant was involved in any offence.
8. The appellant is accused of being a Maoist, wedded to violence, as a means to bring about a political change. Now the question is, if the appellant continues to believe in this ideology, would it be appropriate for this Court to release her on bail and allow her to unleash violence on https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6/10 Crl.A.No.417 of 2021 the instrumentalities of the State. The Indian State now rests on the Constitution of India drafted by a committee of noble men headed by Dr.B.R.Ambedkar.
9. According to Mr.R.Sankarasubbu, the appellant has turned over a new leaf and that is why she surrendered in the Court in the year 2018. We trust the words of Mr.R.Sankarasubbu and hope that the appellant would abjure all forms of violence.
10. We are also alive to the fact that in matters, in which, people wedded to a certain ideology like the appellant herein are involved, they would do everything possible to prevent the conduct of the trial, which will not be known to the outside world or to the press. Even in this case, the Special Judge, with great difficulty, after consulting both sides, fixed a calendar for completing the trial. On the day when PW1 was to be examined, the Advocate for the accused withdrew his memo of appearance and successfully prevented the Special Judge from conducting the trial. However, on account of the dilatory tactics adopted by them, evidences would disappear, eventually leading to their acquittal. At that time, there will be a hue and cry saying that the system, without https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 7/10 Crl.A.No.417 of 2021 any material thereof, had kept the person in prolonged incarceration. This is the bane of our present day criminal justice system and we have to grudgingly endure it. Despite all this, we are inclined to grant bail to the appellant because of her health condition as well taking into consideration the fact that she had voluntarily surrendered in the year 2018 and has been in incarceration for over three years since then. Therefore, we are applying a soothing balm, in order to give her an opportunity to reaffirm her allegiance to the Constitution of India.
11. The appellant shall file a sworn affidavit in Tamil affixing her signature and thumb impression before the trial Judge stating:
(a) that she owes faith and allegiance to the Constitution of India and that she does not believe in Maoism;
(b) that she does not believe in violence as an ideology; and
(c) that she would do nothing to subvert the Constitution of India.
On the appellant filing such an affidavit before the Special Court, the appellant shall be enlarged on bail on her satisfying the following conditions :
i. The appellant shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- with two sureties for like sum each to the satisfaction of the Special Court for Exclusive Trial of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 8/10 Crl.A.No.417 of 2021 Bomb Blast Cases, Poonamallee, Chennai. The appellant should furnish her permanent address and shall inform the trial Court and the respondent about any change in her address.
ii. The sureties should be the blood relatives of the appellant and they shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the Special Court may obtain a copy of their Aadhaar card or Bank pass book and mobile numbers to ensure their identity. iii. She shall appear before the Special Court daily at 10.30 a.m. and sign until further orders.
iv. If the appellant adopts any dilatory tactics during trial, it is open to the Special Court to cancel her bail and remand her to custody as laid down by the Supreme Court in State of U.P. Vs. Shambhu Nath Singh (2001) 4 SCC 667. Though bail has been granted by this Court, as held by the Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji Vs. State of Kerala [(2005) 13 SCC 283], the Special Court can cancel the bail, if situation warrants. If the appellant absconds, a fresh FIR shall be registered against her under Section 229-A IPC.
(P.N.P., J.) (R.H., J.) 03.02.2022 mtl/gya https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 9/10 Crl.A.No.417 of 2021 P.N.PRAKASH, J.
AND R.HEMALATHA, J.
gya To
1. The Deputy Superintendent of Police "Q" Branch CID Dharmapuri
2. The Judge Special Court under the POTA (Sessions Court for Exclusive Trial of Bomb Blast Cases) Poonamallee, Chennai
3. The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras Crl.A.No.417 of 2021
4. The Section Officer Criminal Section High Court, Madras.
5. The Superintendent Special Prison for Women Puzhal, Chennai 03.02.2022 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 10/10