Kerala High Court Refuses Bail To Two Andhra Pradesh Natives Accused Under UAPA For Spreading Maoist Ideology

The Kerala High Court on Tuesday refused to set aside the order of a Special NIA court denying bail to two Andhra Pradesh natives for their alleged involvement in the terrorist organization CPI(Maoists).The accused persons are alleged to have been involved in radicalizing youth and persuading them to join the terrorist organisation. The AP natives are said to have been recruiting members to Dalams, the armed wing of the CPI (Maoist), in Wayanad area. They have also been accused of providing them with training, with the aim of posing a threat to the unity, integrity, and sovereignty of India.A Division Bench of Justice Alexander Thomas and Justice C S Sudha denied bail to the accused persons noting that the offences alleged against them are of a ‘grave and serious’ nature: “Since there are materials to show that A-5 & A-6 have been actively involved in the above terrorist organization and that too, located in various States, there is serious likelihood of both of them absconding or fleeing away from the long arm of the law, in case they are released on bail”The NIA had registered an FIR against the accused persons for offences punishable under Secs.18, 18A, 18B, 20, 38 & 39 of the UAPA and Sec. 120B of the IPC. The Special NIA court had denied them bail under Section 439 of the CrPC and an appeal had been filed by the accused persons under Sec. 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency (NIA) Act, 2008 challenging the order of the NIA court.Adv K.S.Madhusoodanan and Adv. Thushar Nirmal Sarathy appeared for the accused and DSG, Adv. S. Manu, and Adv. K. S. Prenjith Kumar appeared for the National Investigation Agency (NIA). The court observed that CPI (Maoist) in all its formations and frontal organisations would fall under the definition of a terrorist organisation under entry 34 of the First Schedule of the UAPA. Anyone who tries to recruit another person to become a member of the organization, including its armed wing, or any of its front organizations, would be criminally liable under Section 18B of the UAPA, the court observed. The court noted that there was sufficient material on record to show that the accused persons were members of a terrorist organisation and that they took took steps to recruit members to the organisation. The court also observed that they have ‘indulged in acts of advocating or advising or facilitating the commission of certain acts preparatory to the commission of a terrorist act, as understood in Sec. 18’. Additionally the court also observed that the accused person are alleged to have created fear among the locals by entering villages in Maoists uniforms carrying arms, raising anti-national slogans against the State, distributing pamphlets and pasting posters for spreading the Maoist ideology. These acts of the accused person would amount to promoting and encouraging terrorism, the court observed. The material on record would show that the ingredients of offences under Sections 18 (Punishment for conspiracy) and 20 (Punishment for being member of terrorist gang or organisation) of the UAPA are met, the court noted. The court also observed that the alleged actions of the accused persons meeting with villagers and causing them to believe that Maoists would address their issues would also be considered as offences that fall under sub-clauses of either clause (a) of Section 39(1) or clause (c) of Section 39(1) of the UAPA.The prosecution also relied on the statements of 5 Protected Witnesses who were former members of the organisation and had agreed to co-operate with the case against the accused persons. The court took special note of the submission of the prosecution that if the accused were to be released on bail there was every likelihood that they would threaten or endanger the protected witnesses. Refusing to grant bail to the accused in light of the above, the court held: “this Court is not in a position to hold that the considered view taken by the Sessions Court, as per the impugned Annexure IV order is in any manner vitiated by grave illegality or unreasonableness or that this Court should overrule the said decision and grant regular bail to the accused.” Case Title: Chaithanya V Union of India Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 192 Click here to read/download judgment

Kerala High Court Refuses Bail To Two Andhra Pradesh Natives Accused Under UAPA For Spreading Maoist Ideology

Sheryl Sebastian

Tags