'Trial Court Also Passed Equally Well Reasoned Order' : Supreme Court Issues Notice On Thwaha Fasal's Plea Challenging Bail Cancellation In UAPA Case

The Supreme Court on Friday issued notice on the special leave petition filed by Kerala youth Thwaha Fasal, booked under the UAPA for alleged Maoist links, challenging the Kerala High Court's judgment which set aside the bail granted to him by the trial court.A bench comprising Justices Navin Sinha and Ajay Rastogi issued notice returnable within three weeks after hearing Senior Advocate V Giri, who appeared for Thwaha Fasal.During the brief admission hearing, the bench orally remarked that the "trial court has also passed an equally well reasoned order".The bench also noted that the High Court has not cancelled the bail of the first accused in the case, Allan Shuhaib."What prima facie impresses us to issue notice is that first accused has been granted bail and the trial court has passed a detailed order", Justice Navin Sinha orally said. Therefore, the matter requires to be heard in detail, the judge added.Senior Advocate Giri submitted before the bench that the petitioner was a student of journalism, who was in custody since November 1, 2019 till he was granted bail by the Special NIA court in September last year. After the High Court set aside the trial court's order in Janaury, he surrendered.Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, appearing for the National Investigation Agency, submitted that the first accused in the case was granted bail only on medical grounds."That order is also wrong. I have advised them to challenge it too", the ASG said.Arguments in the Special Leave PetiitonIn the special leave petition filed in the Supreme Court, Fasal has stated that the High Court failed to note that "mere possession of Maoist literature is not a criminal offence"."Mere possession of documents of banned organization along with other books of current political and social issues, to the most, only indicating a learning process from the side of the petitioner especially he was a journalism student", the plea states.It is stated that in addition to the books published by CPI(Maoists), articles and pamphlets on various topics ranging from, books by Rosa Luxumberg, articles on the demolished Maradu apartment buildings, were also confiscated from him. The 25-year old points out that none of the materials allegedly seized from him are neither banned nor exhorting or supporting terrorism. It was on January 4 that a division bench comprising Justices A Hariprasad and K Haripal set aside the Special NIA Court's order which granted bail to Thwaha Fasal and co-accused Allan Shuhaib. The Special Court, in its order delivered in September last year, had observed that no prima facie case was made out against the accused so as to attract Section 43D(5) of the Unwalful Activities Prevention Act as regards grant of bail. The Special Court observed that the case materials, at the most, suggested that the accused had Maoist leanings but had not indulged in any overt violence or incitement to violence.The HC observed that the trial court went into a "thread-bare analysis" of the documents on record as if in a trial' and observed that the documents seized from the accused were "highly inflammable and volatile".Though the High Court set aside the Special Court's order, it allowed co-accused Allan Shuhaib to continue on bail, having regard to his young age and special medical conditions related to mental depression. As regards Fasal, the Court noted that the materials seized from him were more serious. The HC also placed special emphasis on the allegation that Fasal had uttered pro-Maoist slogans at the time of his arrest, which the Court termed "blameworthy".The High Court had also observed that the documents seized from the accused were "highly inflammable and volatile".In the special leave petition, it is argued that the trial court had only undertaken a preliminary exercise to examine if a prima facie case was made out to bar the grant of bail under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA. In fact, it is the High Court, the petitioner contends, which went into a detailed re-appreciation of the materials on record to substitute the views of the Special Court.Further, it is argued that the High Court was not justified in observing that the principle "bail is the rule, jail is the exception" is not applicable in UAPA cases. The petitioner refers to the recent Supreme Court judgment in Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb, where bail was granted in a UAPA case taking note of prolonged detention, to argue that the High Court's approach was erroneous.The petition highlights that even the National Investigation Agency(NIA) has no case that the accused is a member of Maoist organization, as Section 20 of UAPA was dropped from the chargesheet. Reference is made to the Supreme Court precedents such as Arup Bhuyan to state that mere passive membership in a banned organization, without any overt violent activities, cannot be...

'Trial Court Also Passed Equally Well Reasoned Order' : Supreme Court Issues Notice On Thwaha Fasal's Plea Challenging Bail Cancellation In UAPA Case

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags