Currently Lodged In vs /3 on 9 March, 2026

[Cites 20, Cited by 0]

Madras High Court

Currently Lodged In vs /3 on 9 March, 2026

These Criminal Appeals are filed by the very same appellant challenging two separate orders passed by the Special Court under the National Agency Act, 2008, Sessions Court for Exclusive Trial for Bomb Blast Cases, Chennai at Poonamallee (in short "the learned Special Judge"). In Crl.A.No.57 of 2025, the appellant challenges the order dated 22.11.2024 passed in Crl.M.P.No.2608 of 2024, whereby the learned Special Judge allowed the petition filed by the prosecution seeking extension of time for 3/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2026 05:19:47 pm ) Crl.A.Nos.18 of 2025 & 57 of 2025 completion of investigation beyond the statutory period. In Crl.A.No.18 of 2025, the appellant challenges the order dated 26.11.2024 passed in Crl.M.P.No.2447 of 2024, whereby the learned Special Judge dismissed the petition filed by the appellant seeking enlargement on regular bail.

2. Since both the appeals are interlinked, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

3.1. The case of the prosecution is that the respondent–National Investigation Agency, on receipt of credible information from the Central Government, registered a case in R.C.No.01/2024/NIA/CHE against several accused persons, including the present appellant, who is arrayed as A5 in the said case, for offences under Sections 13 and 18 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (in short "UAPA Act") read with Sections 120B, 121A, 122 and 153B of IPC.

3.2. It is the further case of the prosecution that the accused persons are members of Hizb-ut-Tahrir (HuT), an organisation involved in activities 4/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2026 05:19:47 pm ) Crl.A.Nos.18 of 2025 & 57 of 2025 of radicalisation and propagation of extremist ideology and in furtherance of its unlawful objectives. According to the prosecution, the accused persons were attempting to establish Khilafat rule in India by overthrowing the existing democratic system and the constitutional Government of the country.

3.3 It is further stated by the prosecution that the accused persons, including the appellant/A5, were involved in organising secret meetings, circulating radical and unlawful materials and attempting to indoctrinate and recruit vulnerable persons in furtherance of the activities of the said organisation. According to the prosecution, through such activities, the accused propagated extremist ideology and encouraged persons to support the objectives of the organisation and that such acts form part of a larger conspiracy involving several persons.

3.4. During the course of investigation, a Look Out Circular had been issued against certain accused, including the appellant, to prevent them from leaving the country and to secure their presence for investigation. In 5/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2026 05:19:47 pm ) Crl.A.Nos.18 of 2025 & 57 of 2025 connection with the said case, the appellant/A5 was arrested on 30.08.2024 at Bangalore Airport and was subsequently remanded to judicial custody on 31.08.2024.

3.5 In view of the nature and magnitude of the investigation and the time required for collection and analysis of the materials, the prosecution filed a petition in Crl.M.P.No.2608 of 2024 before the learned Special Judge, seeking extension of time for completion of investigation beyond the statutory period of 90 days and for extension of the period of judicial custody of the accused upto 180 days. The learned Special Judge, upon consideration of the materials placed and the stage of investigation, allowed the said petition filed by the prosecution by order dated 22.11.2024 and granted extension of time for completion of investigation. Thereafter, the appellant filed a separate petition in Crl.M.P.No.2447 of 2024 seeking enlargement on regular bail. The learned Special Judge, taking into account the nature of the allegations, the materials collected during investigation and the stage of the case, dismissed the said petition for regular bail by order dated 26.11.2024.

6/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2026 05:19:47 pm ) Crl.A.Nos.18 of 2025 & 57 of 2025

4. Aggrieved by the order granting extension of time for completion of investigation and the order dismissing the petition for regular bail, the appellant has preferred the present Criminal Appeals challenging both the said orders.

5.1. The learned counsel would submit that the appellant has been arrayed as A5 in RC.No.01/2024/NIA/CHE for alleged offences under Sections 120B, 121A, 122 and 153B of IPC and Sections 13 and 18 of the UAPA Act. It is submitted that the entire prosecution case, even if taken on its face value, does not disclose any prima facie material to attract the ingredients of the offences alleged against the appellant. The appellant is a law-abiding person, a UK citizen and an Overseas Citizen of India, who entered India through a valid passport and visa only to visit his ailing father and remained in India for more than a month without any summons being issued to him and was arrested only at the time of his departure from Bangalore airport. The learned counsel would submit that the voluntary entry of the appellant into India, despite the arrest of co-accused earlier, demolishes the prosecution theory of conspiracy and clearly demonstrates absence of any guilty intention.

7/30

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2026 05:19:47 pm ) Crl.A.Nos.18 of 2025 & 57 of 2025 5.2. The learned counsel would further submit that the provisions of the Act have been mechanically invoked without any material to show that the appellant had committed, attempted to commit, advocated, abetted or advised the commission of any terrorist act as defined under Section 15 of the UAPA Act so as to attract Sections 13 or 18 of the said Act. It is submitted that to attract Section 18 there must be material showing a specific conspiracy or attempt to commit a terrorist act or any act preparatory thereto and in the present case no such material has been produced. The allegation of funding under Section 17 of the UAPA Act has been introduced only through a belated supplementary charge sheet and is based merely on lawful banking transactions without any material to show that the funds were intended to be used for any terrorist act or terrorist organisation. Thus, the invocation of Sections 13, 17 and 18 of the UAPA Act is wholly unsustainable.

5.3. The learned counsel would submit that the witness statements relied upon by the prosecution are vague, bald and hearsay in nature and do not attribute any specific overt act to the appellant. Many of the witnesses do 8/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2026 05:19:47 pm ) Crl.A.Nos.18 of 2025 & 57 of 2025 not even make any allegation against the appellant and at best refer to alleged religious or ideological discussions. There is no recovery of incriminating material from the appellant and no digital or documentary evidence has been produced to establish any nexus with the alleged offences. It is submitted that mere expression of religious or political opinion or alleged ideological association cannot constitute an offence under UAPA Act in the absence of any material showing involvement in terrorist activity. Hence, there are no reasonable grounds for believing that the accusations against the appellant are prima facie true within the meaning of Section 43D(5) of the UAPA Act.

5.4. The learned counsel would submit that the learned Special Judge, while rejecting the bail petition, has mechanically invoked the rigours of Section 43D of the UAPA Act without examining whether the prosecution materials disclose the statutory ingredients of the alleged offences. The learned counsel would rely upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jalaluddin Khan vs. Union of India [(2024) MLJ (Crl) 441 (SC)], and the recent judgment in Gulfisha Fatima vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) [2026 SC INSC], wherein it has been held that the Court must 9/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2026 05:19:47 pm ) Crl.A.Nos.18 of 2025 & 57 of 2025 undertake an accused-specific analysis and determine whether the material discloses a real and meaningful nexus of the individual accused with the alleged terrorist activity and that prolonged incarceration without likelihood of early trial is a relevant factor for grant of bail even in cases under special statutes. It is submitted that in the present case the learned Special Judge has failed to undertake such an exercise and has rejected the bail petition in a mechanical manner.

5.5. The learned counsel would further submit that the appellant was arrested on 30.08.2024 and remanded to judicial custody on 31.08.2024 and the statutory period of 90 days expired on 29.11.2024. The respondent agency filed a petition seeking extension of time without disclosing any specific progress in investigation or valid reasons necessitating further detention. The learned Special Judge mechanically allowed the extension petition and granted extension of 90 days in one stroke without satisfying the mandatory requirements under Section 43D(2)(b) of the UAPA Act and without proper production of the appellant at the time of consideration of the extension petition. Such extension has resulted in deprivation of the indefeasible right of the appellant to seek default bail and is in violation of 10/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2026 05:19:47 pm ) Crl.A.Nos.18 of 2025 & 57 of 2025 the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jigar @ Jimmy Pravinshandra Adatiya vs. State of Gujarat [MANU/SC/1233/2022]and Bikramjit Singh vs. State of Punjab [(2020) 10 SCC 616], which hold that the right to default bail is an integral part of the procedure established by law under Article 21 of the Constitution.

5.6. The learned counsel would also submit that the appellant is willing to abide by any stringent conditions that may be imposed by this Court and undertakes not to tamper with evidence or influence witnesses.

5.7. The learned counsel would further submit, with particular emphasis, on the serious medical condition of the appellant. It is submitted that the appellant is a COVID-19 survivor and has developed severe cardiac complications including arrhythmia and tachycardia, resulting in irregular heartbeat and reduced cardiac function. The appellant has undergone pulmonary vein isolation procedure and his lung capacity has significantly reduced, requiring continuous medical supervision, inhalation support and regular medication. It is submitted that due to continued incarceration the 11/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2026 05:19:47 pm ) Crl.A.Nos.18 of 2025 & 57 of 2025 appellant has again begun to suffer severe cardiac symptoms and any neglect in medical care may result in cardiac arrest, heart failure or life-threatening stroke. The learned counsel would submit that detailed medical records were placed before the learned Special Judge but the same were not properly considered and no effective medical evaluation was ordered. The continued incarceration of the appellant in such serious medical condition would endanger his life and is violative of his fundamental right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

5.8. The learned counsel would submit that the investigation is still stated to be ongoing, supplementary charge sheets continue to be filed and the trial has not commenced and is not likely to commence in the near future. The appellant has already undergone prolonged incarceration and continued detention would amount to pre-trial punishment. The learned counsel would submit that the allegations against the appellant pertain to events said to have occurred many years ago and are based on vague and bald assertions without any specific particulars or overt acts and therefore continued detention is wholly unjustified.

12/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2026 05:19:47 pm ) Crl.A.Nos.18 of 2025 & 57 of 2025 5.9. The learned counsel would therefore submit that the impugned orders passed by the learned Special Judge rejecting the bail petition and granting extension of time for investigation are mechanical, illegal and violative of the fundamental right to personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that there are no reasonable grounds for believing that the accusations against the appellant are prima facie true and the statutory rigours of Section 43D of the UAPA are not attracted in the facts and circumstances of the case. Hence, the learned counsel prays to set aside the impugned orders passed by the learned Special Judges in both matters and enlarge the appellant on bail on such conditions as may be deemed fit and proper.

6.1. The learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the respondent–National Investigation Agency submitted that, based on credible information received by the Central Government and having regard to the gravity of the offences and their national and international ramifications, the Central Government formed an opinion that scheduled offences under the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 had been committed. Pursuant to the sanction accorded by the Ministry of Home Affairs, a case in RC 13/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2026 05:19:47 pm ) Crl.A.Nos.18 of 2025 & 57 of 2025 No.01/2024/NIA/CHE dated 04.06.2024 came to be registered by the respondent–NIA for offences under Sections 120B, 121A, 122 and 153B of the IPC and Sections 13 and 18 of the UAPA Act, and the FIR was thereafter placed before the learned Special Judge constituted under the NIA Act at Poonamallee, Chennai.

6.2. The learned Additional Solicitor General submitted that during the course of investigation, on the basis of documents and digital devices seized from the residences of the accused Abdul Rehman (A1) and other co- accused, it was revealed that the accused persons were followers of Hizb ut Tahrir, an international fundamentalist organisation professing to work towards the establishment of an Islamic Caliphate and enforcement of its ideological framework. The forensic examination of the seized digital devices disclosed several incriminating materials reflecting extremist and radical ideology, electronic communications, foreign contacts and materials intended for propagation and recruitment, thereby indicating the existence of a wider conspiracy with national and international ramifications. The investigation, according to the respondent, revealed that the accused persons had engaged in a criminal conspiracy aimed at establishing an Islamic 14/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2026 05:19:47 pm ) Crl.A.Nos.18 of 2025 & 57 of 2025 Caliphate in India by overthrowing the legally established Government and had conducted clandestine classes for recruitment and radicalisation, wherein participants were indoctrinated to reject democratic governance and the constitutional framework of the country. The materials collected during investigation also indicated that the present appellant/A5 played a significant role in conducting such sessions and in propagating the ideology in different parts of Tamil Nadu.

6.3. The learned Additional Solicitor General submitted that the investigation further revealed that the appellant/A5, a foreign national holding United Kingdom citizenship and residing abroad for considerable periods, was actively involved in propagating the ideology of the organisation and had travelled to India from abroad in furtherance of such activities. The appellant was intercepted at Bangalore Airport on 30.08.2024 pursuant to a Look Out Circular, arrested after due compliance with legal formalities and produced before the learned Special Judge, whereupon he was remanded to judicial custody. It was submitted that the mobile phone and other digital devices of the appellant were seized and forwarded for forensic examination and that the mirror images already scrutinised disclose 15/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2026 05:19:47 pm ) Crl.A.Nos.18 of 2025 & 57 of 2025 incriminating materials, though the final forensic report is awaited. The investigation in respect of the appellant, it was pointed out, is still in progress, several witnesses remain to be examined and vital aspects such as source of funding and foreign linkages are yet to be fully unravelled, thereby necessitating continued custodial detention.

6.4. The learned Additional Solicitor General submitted that after collection of sufficient materials, a charge sheet has already been filed against certain co-accused and that the investigation as against the appellant and other accused persons is continuing. A detailed report was filed by the Special Public Prosecutor before the learned Special Judge under the proviso to Section 43D(2) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act seeking extension of time for completion of investigation beyond the initial period of ninety days, clearly setting out the progress of investigation and the specific reasons necessitating further detention. The learned Special Judge, upon perusal of the report, the objections filed by the accused and after hearing both sides, was satisfied regarding the progress of investigation and the necessity for further detention and accordingly extended the period of judicial custody from 90 days to 180 days by order dated 22.11.2024. It was submitted that the said order was passed strictly in accordance with statutory 16/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2026 05:19:47 pm ) Crl.A.Nos.18 of 2025 & 57 of 2025 requirements and well within the period of initial remand, and that the contention of the appellant regarding lack of opportunity or violation of safeguards is not supported by the record, as the petition was filed well in advance, copies were furnished, objections were filed and arguments were heard before the order was passed and communicated within the statutory period.

6.5. The learned Additional Solicitor General submitted that the claim of innocence and voluntary return to India projected by the appellant is not borne out by the materials collected during investigation. According to the respondent, the appellant became aware of his arraignment as an accused only upon his arrival in India and thereafter attempted to alter his travel plans and leave the country, but was intercepted pursuant to the Look Out Circular. Such conduct, it was submitted, demonstrates a clear flight risk, particularly in view of the appellant being a foreign national with residence and connections abroad.

17/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2026 05:19:47 pm ) Crl.A.Nos.18 of 2025 & 57 of 2025 6.6. The learned Additional Solicitor General submitted that the nature and gravity of the allegations, which have serious implications for national security and involve an alleged conspiracy with wider ramifications, warrant a cautious and restrained approach in the matter of bail. The investigation, according to the respondent, has revealed foreign connections, digital evidence and organisational involvement which require thorough and uninterrupted investigation. Grant of bail at this stage, it was submitted, would seriously prejudice the ongoing investigation and there exists a real possibility of the appellant influencing witnesses, tampering with evidence or evading the process of law. It was further submitted that the decisions relied upon by the appellant are distinguishable on facts and that the settled principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court emphasise that while personal liberty is a valuable right, the same must be balanced against the larger interests of society and the statutory restrictions imposed by special enactments such as the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.

6.7. The learned Additional Solicitor General submitted, in conclusion, that the learned Special Judge has carefully considered the materials on record, the relevant statutory provisions and the stage of 18/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2026 05:19:47 pm ) Crl.A.Nos.18 of 2025 & 57 of 2025 investigation and has passed reasoned orders both in extending the period for completion of investigation and in declining bail to the appellant. No illegality, perversity or procedural infirmity, according to the respondent, is made out warranting interference by this Court in exercise of appellate jurisdiction. Hence, having regard to the seriousness of the allegations, the prima facie materials collected during the course of investigation, the statutory bar under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA Act, the ongoing investigation, and the apprehension that the appellant may abscond or interfere with the course of justice, the learned Additional Advocate General submits that both the appeals are liable to be dismissed.

7. This Court has carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the entire materials available on record.

8. Both these Criminal Appeals arise out of the same case in RC No.01/2024/NIA/CHE and challenge two interconnected orders passed by the learned Special Judge for NIA Cases, Chennai. One appeal is directed 19/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2026 05:19:47 pm ) Crl.A.Nos.18 of 2025 & 57 of 2025 against the order granting extension of time for completion of investigation under the proviso to Section 43D(2) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, and the other appeal challenges the order rejecting the appellant’s petition for regular bail. Since both appeals arise from the same set of facts and involve overlapping issues, they are considered together and are disposed of by this common judgment.

9. The present case was registered by the respondent–National Investigation Agency on the basis of information received from the Central Government alleging unlawful and extremist activities by certain individuals associated with an organisation said to be engaged in radicalisation and propagation of unlawful ideology. The appellant has been arrayed as A5 in the said case. According to the prosecution, the materials collected during the course of investigation indicate that the accused persons were involved in activities of radicalisation and propagation of extremist ideology in furtherance of unlawful objectives. The appellant was arrested on 30.08.2024 at Bangalore Airport pursuant to a Look Out Circular and has been in judicial custody since 31.08.2024.

20/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2026 05:19:47 pm ) Crl.A.Nos.18 of 2025 & 57 of 2025

10. It is not in dispute that the statutory period of ninety days for completion of investigation was due to expire. Prior to the expiry of the said period, the prosecution filed a petition seeking extension of time up to 180 days under the proviso to Section 43D(2) of the UAPA Act. By order dated 22.11.2024, the learned Special Judge allowed the said petition after hearing both sides.

11. The principal contention of the appellant is that the extension was granted mechanically without demonstrating real progress in the investigation or specific reasons necessitating further detention. This Court is unable to accept the said contention. The records disclose that the prosecution filed a detailed report indicating the stage of investigation, the materials already collected, the seizure and forensic examination of digital devices and the necessity for further investigation into electronic communications, foreign linkages and other connected aspects. The report also specifically set out the reasons necessitating additional time for completion of the investigation.

21/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2026 05:19:47 pm ) Crl.A.Nos.18 of 2025 & 57 of 2025

12. The records further reveal that the petition seeking extension was filed well within the original statutory period, copies were furnished to the accused, objections were filed on behalf of the appellant and both sides were heard before the order was passed. The learned Special Judge has recorded satisfaction regarding the progress of investigation and the necessity for continued detention of the accused for effective completion of the investigation. The requirements of the proviso to Section 43D(2) of the UAPA Act thus stand complied with.

13. It is also relevant to note that the prosecution had placed materials before the trial Court explaining the stage of investigation. The report indicates that charge sheet had already been filed against some of the accused and investigation in respect of the remaining aspects of the case was still in progress. It was further pointed out that the appellant was arrested pursuant to a Look Out Circular and that he is a citizen of the United Kingdom and an Overseas Citizen of India, having residence outside India. The prosecution has also explained that collection of materials relating to foreign linkages and electronic communications is a time-consuming process and therefore sought further time for completing the investigation. 22/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2026 05:19:47 pm ) Crl.A.Nos.18 of 2025 & 57 of 2025

14. Section 43D(2) of the UAPA Act makes it clear that if the Court is satisfied with the report of the Public Prosecutor indicating the progress of investigation and the specific reasons for detention of the accused beyond 90 days, the Court may extend the period of investigation up to 180 days. In the present case, the learned Special Judge, upon considering the materials placed by the prosecution, granted extension of a further period of 90 days for filing the charge sheet. This Court finds that the said order reflects due application of mind and cannot be said to have been passed mechanically. In the absence of any procedural illegality or non-application of mind, this Court finds no infirmity in the order dated 22.11.2024 granting extension of time. The challenge to the said order therefore fails.

15. Insofar as the rejection of regular bail is concerned, the offences alleged include provisions under the UAPA Act along with serious offences under the Indian Penal Code relating to conspiracy and activities affecting national security. Upon perusal of the case diary or the report filed by the investigating agency, if the Court is of the opinion that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusations against the accused are prima facie true, bail shall not be granted.

23/30

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2026 05:19:47 pm ) Crl.A.Nos.18 of 2025 & 57 of 2025

16. A reading of the order passed by the learned Special Judge also indicates that the Court has clearly recorded a finding that there exist prima facie materials against the appellant. It is well settled that granting bail is a discretionary power of the Court. However, such discretion must be exercised judicially and upon proper application of mind to the materials placed before the Court. Once the trial Court has applied its mind and exercised its discretion judicially, the appellate Court would ordinarily refrain from interfering with such an order unless it is shown to suffer from perversity or illegality.

17. At the stage of consideration of bail under a special statute, the Court is not required to undertake a detailed examination of the evidence or assess the credibility of witnesses. The Court is only required to form a prima facie opinion on the basis of the materials placed before it. The sufficiency or otherwise of the evidence is a matter to be decided during the course of trial.

24/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2026 05:19:47 pm ) Crl.A.Nos.18 of 2025 & 57 of 2025

18. The materials placed before this Court, including the documents filed by the respondent agency and the statements of witnesses recorded during the course of investigation, prima facie indicate the role attributed to the appellant in connection with the activities under investigation. The learned Special Judge has taken note of these materials and has recorded satisfaction that the accusations against the appellant are prima facie true. On perusal of the records, this Court finds that such satisfaction cannot be said to be arbitrary or perverse.

19. The offences alleged in the present case relate to activities affecting national security. Whether the materials ultimately prove the charge against the accused is a matter that can be determined only after the filing of the final report and during the course of trial. At the stage of granting or refusing bail, the Court is only required to examine whether sufficient prima facie materials have been placed by the prosecution.

20. The contention of the appellant that no specific overt act has been attributed to him and that the materials relied upon by the prosecution are 25/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2026 05:19:47 pm ) Crl.A.Nos.18 of 2025 & 57 of 2025 insufficient to establish his involvement are matters which can appropriately be examined during the course of trial. At the stage of considering bail, it is sufficient if the materials placed before the Court show a reasonable connection between the accused and the alleged unlawful activities.

21. The further submission of the appellant that he voluntarily entered India and therefore is not a flight risk has been considered. However, the records show that a Look Out Circular had already been issued and the appellant was intercepted at the airport and arrested. The appellant is a foreign national having residence and connections abroad. In such circumstances, the apprehension expressed by the prosecution that the appellant may abscond cannot be said to be unreasonable.

22. Considerable emphasis has been placed by the learned counsel for the appellant on the medical condition of the appellant. It is submitted that the appellant is suffering from certain cardiac and pulmonary ailments which require medical supervision and medication. The right to health is an integral part of the right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of 26/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2026 05:19:47 pm ) Crl.A.Nos.18 of 2025 & 57 of 2025 India. However, the respondent submits that the appellant is being provided with the necessary medical treatment and is under regular medical monitoring while in custody. In such circumstances, the existence of medical issues by itself cannot be a ground for grant of bail in a case where statutory restrictions apply, particularly when adequate medical care can be provided while the accused remains in custody.

23. Nevertheless, to ensure that the appellant receives proper medical care, this Court directs the Superintendent of the concerned Central Prison to refer the appellant to a Medical Board, Rajiv Gandhi Government General Hospital, within 2 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after completing the necessary formalities. The Medical Board shall examine the appellant, assess his present medical condition and suggest appropriate treatment, if required. The prison authorities shall ensure that the appellant receives medical treatment as recommended by the Medical Board and that his health condition is regularly monitored.

27/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2026 05:19:47 pm ) Crl.A.Nos.18 of 2025 & 57 of 2025

24. On an overall consideration of the materials placed on record, the nature of the allegations, the stage of investigation and the statutory provisions governing the case, this Court is of the view that the learned Special Judge has passed reasoned orders both in granting extension of time for completion of investigation and in rejecting the prayer for regular bail. This Court does not find any perversity, illegality or material irregularity in the impugned orders warranting interference in exercise of appellate jurisdiction. There is no quarrel with the decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant, but those decisions are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case on hand.

25. Accordingly, Crl.A.No.57 of 2025 and Crl.A.No.18 of 2025 are dismissed.

                                                                                             [P.V.J.,]    [M.J.R.J.,]
                                                                                                   09 / 03 / 2026

                     Speaking Order
                     Neutral Citation case: Yes

                     rns




                     28/30




https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis                    ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2026 05:19:47 pm )
                                                                                      Crl.A.Nos.18 of 2025 & 57 of 2025


                     To

                     1. The Special Court under the National
                         Investigation Agency Act, 2008,

Sessions Court for Exclusive Trial for Bomb Blast Cases, Chennai at Poonamallee.

2. The Inspector of Police, National Investigation Agency, Union of India, Rep. by Chennai - 600 010.

(In R.C.No.01/2024/NIA/CHE)

3. The CIO/Addl.S.P., National Investigation Agency, Branch Office.

Chennai - 600 010.

4.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison Puzhal - II, Chennai.

5.The Dean, Rajiv Gandhi Government General Hospital, Chennai.

6. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

29/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2026 05:19:47 pm ) Crl.A.Nos.18 of 2025 & 57 of 2025 P.VELMURUGAN. J.

and M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.

rns Pre-Delivery Judgement in Crl.A.Nos.18 & 57 of 2025 09 / 03 / 2026 30/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2026 05:19:47 pm )

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Madras High Court