Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. This appeal is directed against the order of the Special Court under the Prevention of Terrorism Act, Poonmallee, Chennai dated 6-2-2004 made in Crl.M.P. No. 114 of 2003 in and by which the learned Special Judge rejected the application for bail.

2. The appellant has been charged for alleged offences under Section 21(3) punishable under Section 21(4) of Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as "POTA"), Section 4(b)(1) and 5(a) of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and Section 17(1) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1908. The Abhiramapuram Police Station has registered the First Information Report on 6-9-2002 for the aforesaid offences.

4. Heard Mr. K. Chandru, learned senior counsel for the appellant and Mr. I. Subramanian, learned Public Prosecutor for respondent.

5. Mr. K. Chandru, learned senior counsel for the appellant, after taking us through the charges alleged against the appellant, the judgment of the Supreme Court in PUCL v. Union of India as well as the subsequent orders passed by this Court in the case of Pazha Nedumaran and others and also taking note of the fact that the appellant was in custody from 18-9-2002, namely, more than one year and six months, would contend that the appellant's bail application could be considered under the normal criminal law as found in the Code of Criminal Procedure and the learned Special Judge committed an error in dismissing the same. He also contended that there is no case under POTA and the alleged seizure of gelatine sticks and electric detonators was made in the poultry farm of the appellant on 6-11-2002 i.e., long after his arrest on 18-9-2002, not upon the statement or information given by the appellant. In such a circumstance, even the offences under the Explosive Substances Act and the Criminal Law Amendment Act cannot be sustained. In any event, according to him, the appellant has no adverse past records, the trial has commenced, he (appellant) is cooperating with the trial of the case and he is in custody for more than 18 months; hence he may be enlarged on bail subject to certain conditions by this Court. On the other hand, Mr. I. Subramanian, learned Public Prosecutor, would contend that the appellant stands in a different footing than the others, since he was not only charged for the offences under POTA, but also under Explosive Substances Act and Criminal Law Amendment Act. He further contended that though prosecution has examined as many as 18 witnesses, except one, the other witnesses are yet to be cross-examined by the appellant. He also contended that considering the punishment for the offences for which he was charged, the appellant is not entitled for bail and that the learned Judge of the Special Court is right in dismissing his petition.