Kerala High Court
Shefeek vs Union Of India on 2 April, 2025
Author: Raja Vijayaraghavan
Bench: V Raja Vijayaraghavan
2025:KER:27411
Crl.A. No.388 of 2025 :1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. V. BALAKRISHNAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 12TH CHAITHRA, 1947
CRL.A NO. 388 OF 2025
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 18.12.2024 IN CRMP 391/2024 IN SC
NO.2 OF 2023 OF SPECIAL COURT FOR TRIAL OF NIA CASES,
ERNAKULAM
APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS. 62 & 63:
1 SHEFEEK
AGED 34 YEARS
S/O. SHIHABUDHEEN, PARAPPURATH, PUNNAKKAD, MOORKKANAD,
KOLATHUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679338
2 JAFAR B
AGED 37 YEARS
S/O. ASHRAF, BEEMANTAVIDA HOUSE, NEAR HOMEO DISPENSARY,
MATOOL SOUTH, KANNUR, PIN - 670302
BY ADVS.
E.A.HARIS
P.P.HARRIS
2025:KER:27411
Crl.A. No.388 of 2025 :2:
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:
1 UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY, KOCHI, PIN - 682020
2 INSPECTOR OF POLICE
NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY, NIA KOCHI UNIT, KOCHI,
PIN - 682020
BY ADVS.
SREENATH S
SASTHAMANGALAM S. AJITHKUMAR (SR.), DSGI for NIA
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
02.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:27411
Crl.A. No.388 of 2025 :3:
"CR"
JUDGMENT
Raja Vijayaraghavan, J.
The above appeal is preferred by the appellants who are the accused Nos. 62
and 63 in S.C.No.2/2023/NIA on the file of the Special Court for Trial of NIA Cases,
Ernakulam. In the above case, they, along with the rest of the accused, stand
indicted for having committed offences punishable under sections 120B, 34, 109,
115, 118, 119, 143, 144, 147, 148, 449, 153A, 341, 302, 201, 212 r/w.s. 149,
120B r/w.s. 302 of IPC, Section 3(a)(b)(d) r/w. Section 7 of the Religious
Institutions (Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1988 and Sections 13, 16, 18, 18A, 18B,
20, 22C, 23, 38 & 39 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and Section 25
(1) (a) of the Arms Act, 1959. By the order passed by the Special Court, the
application for bail preferred by the appellants was dismissed.
1. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
1.1. The Central Government received credible and actionable intelligence
indicating that the office bearers, members, and cadres of the Popular Front of
India (PFI)--a registered society--and its affiliated organisations in Kerala had
2025:KER:27411
Crl.A. No.388 of 2025 :4:
conspired to instigate communal violence and radicalise their cadres to commit
terrorist acts in the State of Kerala and other parts of the country.
1.2 The intelligence further revealed that PFI members and office
bearers based in Kerala, many of whom had earlier associations with the
proscribed terrorist organisation SIMI (Students Islamic Movement of India),
maintained operational linkages with other internationally proscribed terrorist
organisations such as Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria
(ISIS)/Daesh, and Al-Qaeida. Some members of the PFI cadres were themselves
members of these banned terrorist groups.
1.3 It was revealed that the PFI had allegedly created an organised
network with the objective of recruiting vulnerable Muslim youth into proscribed
international terrorist organisations to facilitate the commission of terrorist acts.
Moreover, PFI and its members were reportedly engaged in activities prejudicial to
public order and harmony by inciting hatred between different religious
communities through incendiary speeches, publications, articles, and social media
posts. Their actions were aimed at disrupting public tranquillity, and evidence
pointed to organised movements intending to train participants in the use of
2025:KER:27411
Crl.A. No.388 of 2025 :5:
criminal force against individuals of other religions or groups--thereby instilling
fear, terror, and a sense of insecurity among members of other communities.
1.4. The PFI and its members were allegedly responsible for several
violent incidents and murders in Kerala, which created a sense of terror in the
minds of the general public. Additionally, it is alleged that PFI, its office bearers,
and its members were indulging in unlawful activities with the intent to foment
disaffection against the Indian State by provoking individuals, especially innocent
members of the Muslim community, to defy the Government and institutions
established by law--thereby undermining the sovereignty and integrity of India.
1.5 Based on the above facts and the gravity of the allegations, the
Central Government formed the opinion that the activities of the Popular Front of
India attracted offences punishable under Sections 120B and 153A of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860, and Sections 13, 18, 18B, 38, and 39 of the Unlawful Activities
(Prevention) Act, 1967, which are scheduled offences under the National
Investigation Agency Act, 2008.
1.6. Being satisfied that the above acts had serious ramifications for
national security, the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, CTCR
2025:KER:27411
Crl.A. No.388 of 2025 :6:
Division, vide Order No. 11011/82/2022-NIA dated 16.09.2022, directed the
National Investigation Agency (NIA) to take up the investigation. In compliance
with the said direction, a case was registered as RC-02/2022/NIA/KOC at the NIA
Police Station, Kochi, on 19.09.2022 under the aforementioned provisions, and the
First Information Report (FIR) was submitted before the jurisdictional Court.
1.7 During the course of the investigation, it was revealed that Crime
No. 318/2022 of Palakkad Town South Police Station, which involved the murder of
one Srinivasan, a BJP activist, was a connected offence under Section 8 of the NIA
Act. In the said case, the Kerala Police had laid a final report arraying 44 persons
as the accused and charged them for having committed offences punishable under
Sections 120B, 34, 118, 119, 109, 115, 143, 144, 147, 148, 449, 341, 201, 212,
302 r/w. Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(a)(b)(d) r/w. Section
7 of the Religious Institutions (Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1988. The case records
in Crime No. 318 of 2022 of Palakkad Town South Police Station were transferred
to the Special Court.
1.8. Accordingly, the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, vide
order No.11011/82/2022/NIA (Part) dated 19.12.2022, directed the NIA to
2025:KER:27411
Crl.A. No.388 of 2025 :7:
investigate FIR No. 318/2022 dated 16.04.2022 of Palakkad Town South Police
Station, Kerala, under the provisions of the NIA Act, 2008.
1.9. It is alleged that the PFI has frontal organisations like Rehab India
Foundation (RIF), Campus Front of India (CFI), All India Imams Council (AIIC),
National Confederation of Human Rights Organization (NCHRO), National Women's
Front (NWF), Junior Front, Empower India Foundation and Rehab Foundation, in
addition to their political wing, Social Democratic Party of India (SDPI).
1.10 On 28.09.2022, the Government of India declared the Popular Front
of India and its affiliates/frontal organisations as an "Unlawful Association" under
the provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967.
1.11. The prosecution alleges that the 1st accused, Popular Front of India, its
office bearers, leaders and members besides their affiliates, hatched a conspiracy
during the past few years inside and outside Kerala, with their agenda to
overthrow the democracy in India and to implement Islamic Rule in India by 2047,
for which they prepared structured stages of progression. In pursuance to their
plans, they carried out various activities which included uniting Muslims under the
flag of PFI, forming alliances with certain groups, stockpiling weapons and
2025:KER:27411
Crl.A. No.388 of 2025 :8:
explosives, etc. They also intended to eliminate those who act against the interest
of PFI and recruit enough trained cadres and stockpile of arms to declare a new
Constitution based on Islamic Principles.
1.12. In pursuance to their larger conspiracy, PFI had established three
Wings - 'Reporters Wing', 'Physical and Arms Training Wing/PE Wing' and 'Service
Wing/Hit teams'. Through their 'Reporters Wing' which is a quasi-intelligence
division of the PFI, it collected private and personal information of prominent
personalities in the society, besides leaders of other communities, especially the
Hindu Community, including their day-to-day activities. The data is compiled at the
PFI District level and communicated to their State hierarchy. The details are
regularly updated and utilised to "Target" the individuals as and when required by
the terrorist gang. The PFI had trained its cadres for the collection of such data
and had stored them, besides providing the same to their assault teams in 'Service
Wing' for attack as and when decided by their leadership.
1.13. In further pursuance to their agenda, the PFI through their Arms
Training Wing, prepared master trainers to impart uniform physical and arms
training under a common syllabus with set course to their cadres in various stages
2025:KER:27411
Crl.A. No.388 of 2025 :9:
under the guise of yoga training programs, rescue and relief activities, martial arts
and other physical development activities. The PFI devised the program to filter
the cadres through various stages and gave arms and explosives training to
selected cadres through these stages. PFI used their various facilities and affiliated
institutions, including the institutions run in the name of 'Trusts', besides other
places for conducting such training camps and secret meetings. The PFI used
these trained cadres for eliminating shortlisted targets based on the decisions of
their leadership as and when required. The PFI also used such selected cadres as
executioners of the decisions of their pseudo court - "Darul Khada".
1.14. The PFI, its office bearers and cadres had conspired to commit
terrorist act by killing any targeted person of another religion/section of the
society to create terror in the minds of other communities and the public at large.
In furtherance to that, PFI leaders and cadres carried out intensive recce on
members of other religions, particularly the Hindu community and compiled the
same for targeting through their 'Service Wing/Hit teams'.
1.15. In murder cases involving PFI cadres, including the one in Crime No.
318 of 2022 of Palakkad Town South Police Station, none of the accused had any
2025:KER:27411
Crl.A. No.388 of 2025 :10:
personal enmity with the deceased. The victims have been selected solely because
of their leadership/membership in a particular community and were killed to create
terror in the society. Several persons were recced to become possible targets. The
PFI through such acts intended to disturb harmony among the society and to
terrorise people within the society with a view to creating a sense of fear and
insecurity in their minds. The PFI also intended to instill confidence among their
cadres by executing such acts. The plans so made were executed to prevent any
defiance of their command in future.
1.16. In one such specific incident in pursuance to their larger conspiracy,
leaders and accused persons being members of Popular Front of India (PFI)
conducted conspiracy at various places in Palakkad on 15th and 16th of April
2022, conducted reconnaissance of residences belonging to several leaders from
Hindu community who appear in their target-list and chose and decided to
eliminate one prominent Hindu leader named S. K. Srinivasan of Palakkad. They, in
furtherance to the conspiracy, set out to commit terrorist act on 16.04.2022 for
which 5 accused persons (A-17 to A-21) came on three two-wheelers, three of
whom criminally trespassed into SKS Autos situated at Melamuri, Pallippuram,
Palakkad run by S. K. Srinivasan and inflicted grievous injuries on Srinivasan and
2025:KER:27411
Crl.A. No.388 of 2025 :11:
killed him by hacking his head and other parts of his body with choppers which
the assailants were carrying with the sole intention and purpose to brutally murder
him, so as to create terror in the mind of other communities and public at large.
The above act of murder is in furtherance of the larger conspiracy of the 1st
accused, to create terror.
1.17. The investigation revealed that the leaders of PFI had justified the
activities of cadres in support of the proscribed terrorist organisation ISIS and
were found with the possession of ISIS propaganda videos and documents for
propagation. The PFI, its leaders and cadres have incited the people by
provocative speeches and slogans to cause communal disharmony.
1.18. On completion of investigation against A1 to A14, A16 to A19, A21 to
A26, A29 to A40, and A42 to A63 and A66, final report has been filed against them
(59 accused) on 17.03.2023, for offence under sections 120B, 34, 109, 115, 118,
119, 143, 144, 147, 148, 449, 153A, 341, 302, 201, 212 r/w. Section 149 of the
IPC, 120B r/w. Section 302 of the IPC, Section 3(a)(b)(d) r/w. Section 7 of the
Religious Institutions (Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1988 and Sections 13, 16, 18,
18A, 18B, 20, 22C, 23, 38 & 39 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and
2025:KER:27411
Crl.A. No.388 of 2025 :12:
Section 25 (1) (a) of Arms Act, 1959.
2. The case of the appellants
2.1 The appellants are accused Nos. 62 and 63 in the above case. They
were arrested on 18.03.2024 and 12.2.2024, respectively, and are in judicial
custody.
2.2. Sri. Raghenth Basant, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
appellants, duly assisted by Sri E.A. Haris, the learned counsel, submitted that the
appellants are innocent of the allegations raised against them. It is urged by the
learned counsel that the grounds of arrest were not informed to the appellants
either orally or in writing and that such action is in gross violation of the
constitutional mandate under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and Section
50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Relying on the decisions of this Court
in the case of Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India1, Prabir Purkayastha v.
State (NCT of Delhi)2 and Vihaan Kumar v State of Haryana3, it was
submitted that on the failure of the 1st respondent to comply with the mandate of
(2024) 7 SCC 576
(2024) 8 SCC 254
2025 SCC OnLine SC 269
2025:KER:27411
Crl.A. No.388 of 2025 :13:
Article 22(1) and Section 50 of Cr.P.C, the arrest of the appellants becomes vitiated
and illegal. It is submitted that in view of the above gross illegality, it may not be
necessary to enter into the controversy surrounding Section 43D(5) of the
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 with regard to the satisfaction as to
whether the accusation against the appellant is prima facie true or not.
3. Response of the respondents
Sri. Sasthamangalam Ajith Kumar, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for
the respondents, submitted that it is not the case of the appellants that the
grounds of arrest were not communicated. The learned counsel would refer to the
arrest memo produced for perusal of this Court and it was urged that it contains
all details, including the date, time and place of arrest, the designation of the
arresting officer etc. It is urged that Column No. 7 of the arrest memo specifically
deals with the query as to whether the grounds of arrest have been explained to
the accused in the vernacular, to which the accused had answered in the
affirmative. He would point out that a copy of the arrest memos was served to the
appellants and had been endorsed with their signature. According to the learned
counsel, there is no requirement under Article 22(1) or in Section 50 of the Cr.P.C
2025:KER:27411
Crl.A. No.388 of 2025 :14:
to communicate the grounds of arrest to the arrestee in writing. Moreover, he
submitted that the mandate of Section 50 is that either the full particulars of the
offence for which he is arrested must be communicated to an arrestee or the
grounds of arrest. The learned Senior counsel would profusely rely on the
principles of law laid down in Ram Kishor Arora v. Enforcement Directorate4,
to support his submissions.
4. Analysis
4.1 We have carefully considered the submissions.
4.2 We have gone through the arrest memo dated 18.03.2024 in respect
of the 1st appellant and the arrest memo dated 12.02.2024 in respect of the 2nd
applicant. In addition to various columns dealing with Case number, Date, Time
and Place of arrest, Address, Names and address of witnesses etc., there is a
specific column with a query "whether the grounds of arrest have been explained
(in vernacular, if possible) to the accused. The response is "Yes" in the case of the
1st appellant and "Yes. Explained in vernacular language" in the case of the 2nd
appellant. There is no serious dispute to the fact that written grounds of arrest
[(2024) 7 SCC 599]
2025:KER:27411
Crl.A. No.388 of 2025 :15:
have not been served to the appellants.
4.3. In Prabir Purkayastha (supra), the Apex Court had occasion to
explain that there is a significant difference in the phrase 'reasons for arrest' and
'grounds of arrest'. The 'reasons for arrest' as indicated in the arrest memo are
purely formal parameters, viz., to prevent the accused person from committing
any further offence; for proper investigation of the offence; to prevent the accused
person from causing the evidence of the offence to disappear or tampering with
such evidence in any manner; to prevent the arrested person for making
inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case
so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the
Investigating Officer. These reasons would commonly apply to any person arrested
on charge of a crime, whereas the 'grounds of arrest' would be required to contain
all such details in the hand of the Investigating Officer, which necessitated the
arrest of the accused. Simultaneously, the grounds of arrest informed in writing
must convey to the arrested accused all basic facts on which he was being
arrested so as to provide him with an opportunity to defend himself against
custodial remand and to seek bail. Thus, the 'grounds of arrest' would invariably
be personal to the accused and cannot be equated with the 'reasons of arrest'
2025:KER:27411
Crl.A. No.388 of 2025 :16:
which are general in nature.
4.4. In Pankaj Bansal (supra), the Apex Court, in the context of an
arrest under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, was seized with the
question as to whether the mere passing of an order of remand is sufficient to
validate the arrest of the detainee. It was held that the issue as to whether the
arrest of the accused was lawful in its inception is a valid consideration in such
matters. The Apex Court held that there is no valid reason as to why a copy of
the written grounds of arrest should not be furnished to the arrested person as a
matter of course and without exception. It was observed that in the event the
grounds of arrest are orally read out to the arrested person or read by such
person with nothing further and this fact is disputed in a given case, it may boil
down to the word of the arrested person against the word of the authorised officer
as to whether or not there is due and proper compliance in this regard.
Non-compliance in this regard would entail the release of the arrested person
straightaway, as held in V. Senthil Balaji v. State5. Such a precarious situation
is easily avoided and the consequence thereof can be obviated very simply by
furnishing the written grounds of arrest, as recorded by the authorised officer in
(2024) 3 SCC 51
2025:KER:27411
Crl.A. No.388 of 2025 :17:
terms of Section 19(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, to the arrested
person under due acknowledgement, instead of leaving it to the debatable ipse
dixit of the authorised officer. It was also held that communication of the grounds
of arrest, as mandated by Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and Section 19
of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, is meant to serve this higher purpose
and must be given due importance. It was observed as under in paragraph 45 of
the judgment:
45. On the above analysis, to give true meaning and purpose to the
constitutional and the statutory mandate of Section 19(1) PMLA of informing
the arrested person of the grounds of arrest, we hold that it would be
necessary, henceforth, that a copy of such written grounds of arrest is
furnished to the arrested person as a matter of course and without
exception.
xxxx xxxx xxxxx
In the case on hand, the admitted position is that ED's investigating
officer merely read out or permitted reading of the grounds of arrest of the
appellants and left it at that, which is also disputed by the appellants. As this
form of communication is not found to be adequate to fulfil compliance with
the mandate of Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 19(1) PMLA, we
have no hesitation in holding that their arrest was not in keeping with the
provisions of Section 19(1) PMLA.
xxxx xxx xxx
2025:KER:27411
Crl.A. No.388 of 2025 :18:
In effect, the arrest of the appellants and, in consequence, their
remand to the custody of ED and, thereafter, to judicial custody, cannot be
sustained.
4.5. In Prabir Purkayastha (supra), the appellants therein were
Directors of a company who were arrested and remanded on an accusation of
having committed offences punishable inter alia under the UAP Act. They
approached the Apex Court with a prayer to declare their arrest as illegal and in
gross violation of the fundamental rights of the petitioner guaranteed under
Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India, and also to set aside and quash the
consequent remand order. One of the contentions raised was that the grounds of
arrest were not informed to the appellant either orally or in writing and that such
action is in gross violation of the constitutional mandate under Article 22(1) of the
Constitution of India and Section 50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The
Apex Court, following the law in Pankaj Bansal (supra), held as under:
27. Thus, there is no hesitation in the mind of this Court that the
submission of the learned ASG that in a case of preventive detention, the
grounds of detention need not be provided to a detenu in writing is ex facie
untenable in the eye of the law.
28. The language used in Article 22(1) and Article 22(5) of the
2025:KER:27411
Crl.A. No.388 of 2025 :19:
Constitution of India regarding the communication of the grounds is exactly
the identical. Neither of the constitutional provisions require that the
"grounds" of "arrest" or "detention", as the case may be, must be
communicated in writing. Thus, interpretation to this important facet of the
fundamental right as made by the Constitution Bench while examining the
scope of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India would ipso facto apply to
Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India insofar as the requirement to
communicate the grounds of arrest is concerned.
29. Hence, we have no hesitation in reiterating that the requirement
to communicate the grounds of arrest or the grounds of detention in writing
to a person arrested in connection with an offence or a person placed under
preventive detention as provided under Articles 22(1) and 22(5) of the
Constitution of India is sacrosanct and cannot be breached under any
situation. Non-compliance of this constitutional requirement and statutory
mandate would lead to the custody or the detention being rendered illegal,
as the case may be.
30. Furthermore, the provisions of Article 22(1) have already been
interpreted by this Court in Pankaj Bansal [Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India,
(2024) 7 SCC 576] laying down beyond the pale of doubt that the grounds
of arrest must be communicated in writing to the person arrested of an
offence at the earliest. Hence, the fervent plea of the learned ASG that there
was no requirement under law to communicate the grounds of arrest in
writing to the appellant-accused is noted to be rejected. The 1st appellant
was arrested on 18.03.2024 as per arrest memo dated 18.03.2024 and the
2nd appellant was arrested on12.02.2024 as per arrest memo dated
12.02.2024.
2025:KER:27411
Crl.A. No.388 of 2025 :20:
4.6. Later, in Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana and Another6,
the Apex Court, following the principles of law laid down in Pankaj Bansal
(supra) and Prabir Purkayastha (supra), had finally settled the law by
holding as under:
21. Therefore, we conclude:
a) The requirement of informing a person arrested of grounds of
arrest is a mandatory requirement of Article 22(1);
b) The information of the grounds of arrest must be provided to the
arrested person in such a manner that sufficient knowledge of the basic
facts constituting the grounds is imparted and communicated to the arrested
person effectively in the language which he understands. The mode and
method of communication must be such that the object of the constitutional
safeguard is achieved;
c) When arrested accused alleges non-compliance with the
requirements of Article 22(1), the burden will always be on the Investigating
Officer/Agency to prove compliance with the requirements of Article 22(1);
d) Non-compliance with Article 22(1) will be a violation of the
fundamental rights of the accused guaranteed by the said Article. Moreover,
it will amount to a violation of the right to personal liberty guaranteed by
Article 21 of the Constitution. Therefore, non-compliance with the
requirements of Article 22(1) vitiates the arrest of the accused. Hence,
further orders passed by a criminal court of remand are also vitiated.
[2025 SCC OnLine SC 269]
2025:KER:27411
Crl.A. No.388 of 2025 :21:
Needless to add that it will not vitiate the investigation, charge sheet and
trial. But, at the same time, filing of chargesheet will not validate a breach of
constitutional mandate under Article 22(1);
e) When an arrested person is produced before a Judicial Magistrate
for remand, it is the duty of the Magistrate to ascertain whether compliance
with Article 22(1) and other mandatory safeguards has been made; and
f) When a violation of Article 22(1) is established, it is the duty of the
court to forthwith order the release of the accused. That will be a ground to
grant bail even if statutory restrictions on the grant of bail exist. The
statutory restrictions do not affect the power of the court to grant bail when
the violation of Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution is established.
4.7. We notice that in Ram Kishor Arora v. Enforcement
Directorate7, a Two-Judge Bench of the Apex Court interpreted the judgment
in Pankaj Bansal (supra) to have a prospective effect. Indisputably, the
appellants herein were remanded to police custody after 3.10.2023, on which
day the judgment in Pankaj Bansal (supra) was delivered. In that view of
the matter, the appellants cannot be denied the benefit of the law laid down
by the Apex Court, being the law of the land and binding under Article 141 of
the Constitution of India.
(2024) 7 SCC 599]
2025:KER:27411
Crl.A. No.388 of 2025 :22:
4.8. As held in Vihaan Kumar (supra), when a violation of Article
22(1) is established, the accused are entitled to be released forthwith on bail,
even if statutory restrictions on the grant of bail exist. Statutory restrictions
can in no way inhibit the power of the court to grant bail when the violation of
Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution is established.
4.9. The appellants having been arrested on 18.03.2024 and
12.2.2024 and it being the admitted position that written grounds of arrest
have not been furnished, the arrest of the appellants and consequent remand
is vitiated.
5. Conclusion:
Resultantly, this appeal will stand allowed. The impugned order passed
by the Special Court For the Trial of NIA Cases, Ernakulam, in Crl. M.P. No.
391/2024 in S.C.No.02/2023/NIA, is set aside. The appellants shall be
released on bail on each of them executing a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees
One lakh) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of
the Special Court. It shall be open to the Special Court to impose such
additional conditions as it may deem fit and necessary in the interest of
2025:KER:27411
Crl.A. No.388 of 2025 :23:
justice. However, the conditions shall mandatorily include the following:
a) If the appellants intend to leave the State of Kerala, they shall
obtain prior permission from the Special Court.
b) If the appellants are in possession of any passport(s), they shall
surrender the same before the Special Court forthwith.
c) The appellants shall furnish to the Investigating Officer of the
NIA their complete and current residential address, including
any changes thereto, and shall ensure that the same remains
updated at all times.
d) The appellants shall each use only one mobile number during
the period of bail and shall communicate the said number to
the Investigating Officer of the NIA. They shall remain
accessible on the said number throughout the duration of bail
and shall not, under any circumstances, switch off or discard
the device associated with it without prior intimation.
e) The appellants shall report before the Station House Officer of
the Police Station having jurisdiction over their place of
residence once every fortnight, without fail
f) The appellants shall not tamper with evidence or attempt to
influence or threaten any witnesses in any manner.
2025:KER:27411
Crl.A. No.388 of 2025 :24:
g) The appellants shall not engage in or associate with any activity
that is similar to the offence alleged against them or commit
any offence while on bail.
In the event of any breach of the aforesaid conditions or of any other
condition that may be imposed by the Special Court in addition to the above,
it shall be open to the prosecution to move for cancellation of the bail granted
to the appellants before the Special Court, notwithstanding the fact that the
bail was granted by this Court. Upon such application being made, the Special
Court shall consider the same on its own merits and pass appropriate orders
in accordance with law.
sd/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V,
JUDGE
sd/-
P.V.BALAKRISHNAN,
JUDGE
PS/31/03/25
2025:KER:27411
Crl.A. No.388 of 2025 :25:
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF FINAL
REPORT DATED 13.07.2022 IN CRIME NO. 318 OF
2022 OF PALAKKAD TOWN SOUTH POLICE STATION
Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF
SUPPLEMENTARY CHARGE DATED 12.12.2022 IN
CRIME NO. 318 OF 2022 OF PALAKKAD TOWN SOUTH
POLICE STATION
Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE
CHARGE IN CRIME NO.203 OF 2022 OF KASABA
POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD
Annexure A4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16/9/2022 ISSUED
BY SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA,
MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS CTCR DIVISION
Annexure A5 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN RC 2/2022/NIA/KOC
DATED 19/9/2022
Annexure A6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19/12/2022
ISSUED BY UNDER SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT
OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS CTCR
DIVISION
Annexure A7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23/1/2023 ISSUED
BY THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR HIGH COURT OF
KERALA
2025:KER:27411
Crl.A. No.388 of 2025 :26:
Annexure A8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16.03.2023
ISSUED BY UNDER SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT
OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS CTCR
DIVISION
Annexure A9 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE FINAL
REPORT IN RC NO.2/2022 IN SC NO.2/2023 ON THE
FILES OF THE SPECIAL COURT OF NIA CASES
ERNAKULAM
