Swear Faith & Allegiance To Constitution : Madras High Court Asks Maoist For Bail

Madras High Court has recently granted bail to an accused Maoist on the condition that she would file a sworn affidavit in the Tamil language, declaring her faith and allegiance to the Indian Constitution.The Division Bench of Justice P.N Prakash and Justice R. Hemalatha has also held that the affidavit should mention that the accused person does not believe in Maoism anymore. She should also give an undertaking to the effect that she does not believe in violence as an ideology and she will abstain from doing anything to subvert the Indian Constitution. The said affidavit should be filed after affixing her signature and thumb impression."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 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", the court observed before listing out the bail conditions.The court agreed to enlarge the appellant on bail upon satisfaction of the above condition. The two-judge bench has also mentioned that the Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Bomb Blast Cases, Poonamallee is vested with the discretion to cancel her bail, in case the accused resorts to dilatory tactics during the trial (according to the law laid down in State of U.P. Vs. Shambhu Nath Singh, (2001) 4 SCC 667)."According to Mr.R.Sankarasubbu (counsel for the accused), 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", the court added, expressing its hope for the appellant accused.The bench was considering the criminal appeal of Sathya Mary under Section 34(4) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA). The appeal was against the order of the Special Court declining her bail on medical grounds in 2021. The alleged Maoist was caught in 2003 and tried under POTA for offences under Sections Sections 148, 333, 307, 333 IPC read with Section 149 IPC, Section 307 IPC read with Section 49 IPC and Section 120-B IPC, along with various provisions of Arms Act and POTA.Previously, the accused had absconded in 2009 after obtaining bail from the High Court in 2005. She surrendered in 2017 after her bail was cancelled and just before the completion of proclamation proceedings under Section 82 CrPC. If the appellant absconds again, a fresh FIR will be registered under Section 229-A IPC.The court also deemed it important to mention that the Special Court had fixed a calendar for completing the trial which was jeopardised by the accused advocate withdrawing his memo of appearance on the day of examining PW1."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...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 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", the court further added.Terming the grant of bail as a 'soothing balm' for the accused, the court asked to consider it as another opportunity to reaffirm her allegiance to the Indian Constitution. Justifying the grant of bail, the court remarked that it has taken into account the medical condition of the accused, the fact that she had voluntarily surrendered before Special Court in 2017 and her period of incarceration in the form of judicial custody over three years since then.Case Title: Sathya Mary @ Padma v. StateCase No: Crl.A.No.417 of 2021Click Here To Read/ Download Order

Swear Faith & Allegiance To Constitution : Madras High Court Asks Maoist For Bail

Sebin James

Tags