Kerala High Court Grants Bail To Alleged LTTE Operative In NIA Terror Funding Case After Four Years in Custody

A Division Bench comprising Justice Susrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice P V Balakrishnan allowed the Criminal Appeal, setting aside the Special Court's April 22, 2024 order that had rejected the accused's bail plea.

The appellant is a Sri Lankan citizen residing in Chennai as a refugee, who is facing trial in Special Court for trial of NIA (National Investigation Agency). The NIA has charged him under multiple provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), the Arms Act, and the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act.

According to the prosecution, the appellant was an armed cadre of the LTTE and part of the outer security wing of its leader, V. Prabhakaran. He is accused of conspiring with co-accused to revive the banned organisation and further its activities in India and Sri Lanka, including waging war against Sri Lanka.

The NIA alleged that the conspiracy involved large-scale trafficking of narcotics and arms. The charge sheet refers to the procurement of over 300 kilograms of heroin, five Type-56 rifles, and 1,000 rounds of 9 mm ammunition. Funds allegedly generated through drug and arms sales were said to have been routed through gold and hawala channels and invested in movable and immovable properties to support LTTE operations.

The prosecution also opposed bail on the ground that Satkunam had criminal antecedents, including a prior conviction in a drug trafficking case, and posed a flight risk. It further invoked Sections 43-D(5) and 43-D(7) of the UAPA, which impose stringent conditions on the grant of bail, particularly to non-citizens who have entered India illegally.

The Court noted that the appellant had been in custody since October 5, 2021 which is more than four years and four months. A status report from the trial court indicated that the trial is unlikely to begin before January 2027 and may conclude only by December 2027. The case involves 209 witnesses and 446 documents.

The Bench held that in light of the prolonged incarceration and delay in trial, the constitutional guarantee under Article 21 , which includes the right to a speedy trial, must prevail.

The Court relied on Supreme Court precedents, including Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb (2021 KHC OnLine 6045], Shoma Kanti Sen v. State of Maharashtra[2024 KHC OnLine 6182], Athar Parwez v. Union of India[2024 KHC 6719], and Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra[2024 (9) SCC 813], and observed that statutory restrictions on bail under Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA do not completely oust the constitutional courts' power to grant bail in cases of undue delay.

“In the light of the dictums laid down by the Apex Court, considering the fact that the appellant herein is undergoing incarceration for a period of more than four years and four months and also the report received from the trial court, which shows that the trial is not likely to commence and end in near future, we are of the considered view that this is a fit case where the appellant can be granted the relief as sought for by him.” Court observed

The Court also rejected the argument that Section 43-D(7), which bars bail to certain non-citizens, creates an absolute embargo. It held that Article 21 protections apply to all persons, not just Indian citizens.

“The contention of the respondent that Section 43-D(7) of the UA(P) Act places a complete embargo on this Court in granting bail to the appellant, does not have any legs to stand since, the right to speedy trial enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution is applicable to all persons and is not restricted to citizens of this country. The meaning of the word 'life' in Article 21 cannot be narrowed down and it is available not only to every citizen of the country, but also to a person, who may not be a citizen of the country.” Court said

The Court held that the constitutional right of speedy trial will have precedence over the strict provisions such as Sections 43-D (5) and also 43-D (7) of the UAPA.

The Court thus allowed the appeal by directing the appellant to be released on bail upon executing a bond of ₹1 lakh with two solvent sureties. It imposed stringent conditions, including prior permission from the Special Court to leave Kerala; surrender of passport, if any; mandatory reporting to the local police station on the first and third Saturdays of every month.

The Court has also directed the submission and continuous use of a single mobile number accessible to the NIA; prohibition on tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses; a bar on engaging in similar activities or committing any offence while on bail.

The Court clarified that any breach of conditions would entitle the prosecution to seek cancellation of bail before the Special Court.

Case Title: Satkunam @ Sabesan v Union of India

Case No: Crl.A 1731/ 2024

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 117

Counsel for Appellant: Cimil Cherian Kottalil, B Vinod

Counsel for Respondent: T C Krishna (Senior Panel Counsel), O M Shalina (DSGI)