Madras High Court
Prakash @ Daniel Prakash vs The State Represented By on 5 July, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 05.07.2023
Coram
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVEL
Criminal Appeal No. 624 of 2023
Prakash @ Daniel Prakash
S/o.Devasagayam .. Appellant
Vs
The State represented by
The Additional Deputy Superintendent of Police
Special Investigation Division
Crime Branch CID, Madurai. .. Respondent
Criminal Appeal filed under Section 21 of National Investigation
Agency Act, 2008 against the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.734 of 2023 on
the file of the Special Court under the National Investigation Agency Act,
2008 (Sessions Court for Exclusive Trial of Bomb Blast Cases), Chennai at
Poonamallee dated 12.05.2023 and set aside the same and enlarge the
appellant on bail in Crime No.1/2023 on the file of the respondent police.
For Appellant .. Dr.S.Manoharan
For Respondent .. Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan
Additional Public Prosecutor
assisted by Mr.J.Kalaiselvan
Page Nos.1/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.SUNDAR, J.)
This order will now dispose of the captioned Criminal Appeal.
2. When the captioned criminal appeal was listed before this Bench on
13.06.2023, the following proceedings / orders were made:
'Captioned Criminal Appeal has been filed assailing an
'order dated 12.05.2023 made in Crl.M.P.No.734 of 2023 in
Spl.S.C.No.9 of 2022 (C.C.No.7/2014) (CNR No.TNCH06-
000734-2023)' on the file of 'Special Court under the National
Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (Sessions Court for Exclusive
Trial of Bomb Blast Cases) Chennai at Poonamallee, Chennai'
[hereinafter 'impugned order' and 'trial Court' respectively for the
sake of convenience and clarity]. To be noted, in and by
impugned order, trial Court has dismissed a regular bail
application under Section 439 of 'The Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974)' [hereinafter 'Cr.PC' for the sake of
brevity and clarity].
2. Ms.K.Dheepakshi, learned counsel is before us on behalf
of appellant on the videoconferencing platform (to be noted, this
is a hybrid hearing).
Page Nos.2/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3. Ground No.(viii) in the grounds of appeal placed before
us reads as follows:
'viii. At the period of granting bail, the petition had been facing
the trial at Bangalore in S.C.No.381/2015 C/W S.C.No.1347/2016
before the Court XLIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge
(Special Judge for trial of NIA cases), (CCH-50) Bangalore.
Therefore, he filed the petition to cancel the bail that itself shows
that he is genuine to face the trial. Now the case of trial
completed Bangalore and he served out the sentence. Now, he
has filed petition for bail.'
(underlining made by this Court for ease of reference)
4. This Court wanted to know from the learned counsel for
appellant the details regarding petition to cancel bail and orders
passed thereon. This Court also wanted learned counsel to
produce copies of the same, if available.
5. Faced with the above situation, learned counsel
requested for a short accommodation. Request acceded to.
6. List day-after-tomorrow. List on 15.06.2023 under the
cause list caption 'ADJOURNED ADMISSION'.'
3. Thereafter, there were three listings on 15.06.2023, 26.06.2023 and
28.06.2023 when the following proceedings were made:
Proceedings dated 15.06.2023:
Page Nos.3/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
'Read this in conjunction with and in continuation of
earlier proceedings made in the previous listing on 13.06.2023.
2. Ms.K.Dheepakshi, learned counsel for petitioner
requests for further time to do the needful and bring on board the
papers available with her. Request acceded to.
3. List on Tuesday. List on 20.06.2023.'
Proceedings dated 26.06.2023:
'Re-notified.
List day-after-tomorrow.
List on 28.06.2023.'
Proceedings dated 28.06.2023:
'Re-notified.
List on 05.07.2023.'
4. Aforementioned proceedings / orders, more particularly proceedings
/ orders made on 13.06.2023 shall now to be read as an integral part and
parcel of this order and therefore, short references, short forms and
abbreviations used in 13.06.2023 proceedings shall continue to be used in
the instant order also.
5. Today, Dr.S.Manoharan, learned counsel on record for appellant
Page Nos.4/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
and Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan, learned State Additional Public Prosecutor
assisted by Mr.J.Kalaiselvan, learned counsel and instructed by Ms.T.Pandi
Muthulakshmi, Inspector of Police, jurisdictional police station in Tirunelvei
are before us.
6. Adverting to earlier proceedings made on 13.06.2023,
Dr.S.Manoharan, learned counsel on record for appellant submitted that an
additional typed set of papers dated 16.06.2023 (containing 02.05.2016
surrender petition and case status showing 02.05.2016 bail cancellation
order) has been filed. To be noted, this additional typed set is on board
before us. As regards Special S.C.No.9 of 2022 (C.C.No.7 of 2014) (CNR
No.TNCH06-000734-2023) the appellant before us is A12 and he is
standing trial for alleged offences under Sections 153A, 109 and 120B of
'Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860)' ['IPC' for the sake of brevity]
read with Section 5 of the Explosives Substances Act, 1908 and Section 18
of 'the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967' [hereinafter 'UAPA' for the
sake of brevity, convenience and clarity].
7. This Bench is informed without any disputation or contestation that
Page Nos.5/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
investigation has been completed, final report (charge sheet) has been filed,
trial has commenced and prosecution witness No.1 has already been
examined.
8. The legal drill on hand is fairly simple as the trial Court has already
granted bail to the appellant in and by an order dated 17.12.2015 made in
Crl.M.P.No.643 of 2014. To be noted, in the impugned order (paragraph
No.12 thereat) the trial Court has said that this earlier order granting bail is
not a ground as this earlier bail order was subsequently cancelled by the trial
Court in and by order dated 02.05.2016 in C.M.P.No.248 of 2016.
However, from the aforementioned additional typed set of papers, we find
that 02.05.2016 order of the trial Court cancelling the bail granted to the
appellant is owing to surrender and willingness of the appellant for
cancellation of bail, more importantly, the appellant himself sought
cancellation of bail to enable him to stand trial in Bangalore i.e., Crime
No.118 of 2013 on the file of Bangalore City, Vayalikaval Police Station.
Pursuant to 02.05.2016 surrender petition filed by the appellant, the trial
Court made the cancellation of bail order and the same as culled out from
Page Nos.6/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the official website is as follows:
9. Therefore, the sheet anchor ground on which the bail was rejected
i.e., substratum of the impugned order made by the trial Court i.e., the
ground that grant of earlier bail order cannot be taken into account as the
same was cancelled pales into insignificance. This is the reason why we
opened with the observation that the legal drill on hand or in other words,
the task of disposing of the captioned appeal is fairly simple.
10. Adverting to grounds of appeal and case file before us, learned
counsel for petitioner submitted that out of 19 accused in the trial Court as
Page Nos.7/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
many as 9 accused have already been enlarged on bail by three different
orders made by this Hon'ble Court. The details as captured in paragraph
No.10 of earlier bail order granted by trial Court is as follows:
'10........................ In this case there are 19 accused and out
of which A1 to A5 was released on bail by the Hon'ble High Court
of Madurai Bench of Madras in Crl.O.P.(MD) Nos.3432, 3433,
and 4571 of 2014 by orders dated 25.07.2014; A6, A7 and A10
was released on bail by the Hon'ble High Court of Madurai
Bench of Madras in Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.8181, 10047 and 6843 of
2015 by orders dated 03.07.2014; and A13 was released on bail
by the Hon'ble High Court of Madurai Bench of Madras in
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.21507 of 2014 by orders dated 06.03.2015.'
11. To be noted, there is no disputation about aforementioned factual
position and there is no complaint of any untoward occurrence as regards
those out on bail and there is no complaint of trial being impeded or
derailed.
12. Be that as it may, learned counsel for appellant submitted that the
appellant has been incarcerated for over 10 years now. In this regard,
learned counsel pointed out that the sentence awarded by Bangalore Court is
Page Nos.8/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
7 years and appellant remains in incarceration for over 10 years now.
13. Learned Prosecutor, adverting to objections and more particularly,
paragraph No.6 thereat drew our attention to the tabulation set out in
paragraph No.6 thereat and submitted that the appellant is involved in more
than one criminal case, therefore we deem it appropriate to extract and
reproduce this tabulation (as in the objections of the State) and the same is
as follows:
Page Nos.9/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
14. A careful perusal of the tabulation shows that six cases have been
cited besides the case on hand. To be noted, S.No.7 in the tabulation is the
case on hand i.e., case out of which the captioned appeal arises. As regards
six other cases, two have ended in acquittal and one has been settled through
Lok Adalat all in 2017 and 2018. One other case namely, S.No.5 is shown
as disposed of on 27.11.2017 but we are informed that, it appears to be a
closure as mistake of fact. That leaves us with only one conviction i.e.,
aforementioned conviction (7 years sentence) by the Bangalore Court vide
Crime No.118 of 2013 Bangalore City, Vayalikaval Police Station. As
already alluded to supra, the sentence is 7 years and the appellant has
already remained incarcerated more than 10 years as an undertrial. This
means that effectively only one criminal case is pending trial, that is Crime
No.118 of 2010 on the file of Kanyakumari Police Station. That we are
given to understand is for alleged offences under Section 379 IPC read with
120B. It is before learned Judicial Magistrate and maximum punishment is
only 3 years. Therefore, other than one criminal case for alleged offences
under Sections 379 IPC read with 120B for which maximum punishment is
only 3 years, there is no other criminal case pending against the appellant.
Page Nos.10/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
15. This Court is informed that the aforementioned other 9 accused
who have been enlarged on bail by three different orders made by different
Hon'ble Benches of this Court are complying the conditions and the trial is
proceeding (as already alluded to supra).
16. In the light of the narrative thus far, we deem it appropriate to
interfere with the impugned order and we are of the view that this is a fit
case for grant of bail.
17. The following order is made :
(i) The impugned order dated 12.05.2023 made in
Crl.M.P.No.734 of 2023 in Spl.S.C.No.9 of 2022 (C.C.No.7 of
2014) (CNR No.TNCH06-000734-2023) on the file of the
Special Court under the National Investigation Agency Act,
2008 (Sessions Court for Exclusive Trial of Bomb Blast Cases)
Chennai at Poonamalee, Chennai-56 is set aside;
Page Nos.11/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
(ii) The appellant is enlarged on bail subject to conditions
which are adumbrated infra in other sub-paragraphs;
(iii) Appellant will stay at his residence in Tirunelveli
namely, Door No.9/2, Nadar Theru, Melapudukudi,
Karukurichi, Tirunelveli Distrct (learned counsel for appellant
has submitted without disputation that this is appellant's own
house);
(iv) Appellant shall sign on the first working day of every
week i.e., Monday at 10.30 a.m. (the next working day if
Monday happens to be a public holiday) before Special
Investigation Division, CBCID Inspector of Police, Tirunelveli;
(v) The appellant shall execute a bond and furnish two
sureties for a sum of Rs.10,000/- each (one of the sureties
should be a blood relative) to the satisfaction of the trial Court
i.e., Special Court under the National Investigation Agency Act,
2008 (Sessions Court for Exclusive Trial of Bomb Blast Cases)
Chennai at Poonamalee, Chennai-56;
Page Nos.12/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
(vi) If Special S.C.No.9 of 2022 (C.C.No.7 of 2014)
(CNR No.TNCH06-000734-2023) is listed on Monday, the
appellant will be exempted from signing before Special
Investigation Division, CBCID Inspector of Police, Tirunelveli
but shall sign on the next available working day in that week;
(vii) If C.C.No.121 of 2010 is listed before the learned
Judicial Magistrate No.I, Nagercoil on Monday, it will be open
to the appellant to file a petition under Section 317 of Cr.PC and
learned Magistrate shall take into account the conditions that
have been imposed by this Court in considering Section 317
petition;
Captioned Criminal Appeal ordered and disposed of on above terms.
(M.S.J.) (R.S.V.J.)
05.07.2023
Index: Yes
Speaking
Neutral Citation:Yes
mk
P.S: Registry to forthwith communicate this order to Jail authorities in
Central Prison, Parappana Agraharam, Bangalore.
M.SUNDAR, J.
Page Nos.13/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
and
R.SAKTHIVEL, J.
mk
To
1. The State represented by
The Additional Deputy Superintendent of Police
Special Investigation Division
Crime Branch CID, Madurai.
2. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
Crl. A. No.624 of 2023
05.07.2023
Page Nos.14/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
