Madras High Court
Suresh Rajan vs Union Of India on 2 September, 2024
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam, V.Sivagnanam
CRL.A.No.425 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 02.09.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM
CRL.A.No.425 of 2023
and
CRL.M.P.Nos.9114 of 2023
Suresh Rajan ... Appellant
Vs.
Union of India,
Represented by
The Inspector of Police,
National Investigation Agency,
Chennai.
(RC.No.7/2021/NIA/DLI) ... Respondent
Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 21 of National Investigation
Agency Act, 2008, to set aside the order in Crl.M.P.No.715 of 2022 in
Spl.S.C.No.27 of 2022 dated 27.01.2023 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 – 56.
For Appellant : Mr.R.Sankarasubbu
Page 1 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.A.No.425 of 2023
For Respondent : Mr.R.Karthikeyan
Special Public Prosecutor
[For NIA] Assisted by
Mr.G.Siddi Ramulu
Senior Public Prosecutor [For NIA]
JUDGMENT
[Judgment was delivered by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.]
Under assail is the judgment dated 27.01.2023 in Crl.M.P.No.715 of
2022 in Spl.S.C.No.27 of 2022 (CC.No.3 of 2021).
2. The petitioner is arrayed as Accused No.2 in Spl.S.C.No.27 of 2022.
He moved an application under Section 227 of Criminal Procedure Code to
discharge from the charges levelled against him in the chargesheet. The
petitioner has allegedly involved in the offences punishable under Sections
120B, 124A, 201 and 505(1)(b) of Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections
13(1)(b), 38 and 39 of the Unlawful Activities Act, 1967.
3. Mr.R.Sankarasubbu, learned counsel for the petitioner would
strenuously contend that the appellant is no way connected the offences and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A1 / Mr.Vivek @ Vivekanandan posted some prohibited comments in his
Facebook, which resulted in criminal case against the petitioner. The posting
in the Facebook had been withdrawn subsequently. Therefore, the appellant
is innocent of the allegation and to be exonerated.
4. In support of his contention, he urged by stating that the judgment
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of S.G.Vombatkere vs.
Union of India1, is to be taken into consideration, since in the present case
the action permissible is only under Section 120A. Thus, the petitioner is to
be discharged from the allegations set out in the chargesheet.
5. Mr.R.Karthikeyan, learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing on
behalf of the National Investigation Agency would oppose by stating that it
is not only a post in the Facebook, which was taken into account. But the
petitioner was found to be a member of a terrorist organisation. He was
charged for the alleged offence, under Sections 13(1)(b), 38 and 39 of the
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 [hereinafter referred as “UA(P)
Act”]. The Trial Court itself has taken note of the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in S.G.Vombatkere case cited supra and accordingly made a
1. (2022) 7 SCC 433
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
finding that no prejudice would be caused to the accused in the event of
conducting trial. Therefore, the present appeal is to be rejected.
6. Scope of discharge petition under Section 227 of Criminal
Procedure Code cannot be entertained for purpose of appreciation of
evidence. The probate value of the evidences are to be taken into
consideration by the Trial Court during the course of Trial. Only if no prima
facie case against the accused is made out, then only the Court will invoke
the powers conferred under Section 227 of Criminal Procedure Code.
7. In the present case, the Trial Court elaborately considered the
submission of the appellant and made a finding, which reads as under;
“10. (C.W.20), (C.W.21), (C.W.22), (C.W.23),
(C.W.24) and (C.W.25) these witnesses speak about the
close association of accused A1 Vivek, petitioner /
Accused No.2 and Accused No.A3. From the location
based analysis it is found that location of accused
Vivek, Suresh and Mohan was at B.B.Kulam Kovil
Street, Madurai (Lat-9-944444, Long-78.12334 on
14.08.2020 22:00 hours to 15.08.2020 06:00 hours
which clearly prove the presence of accused Vivek,
Suresh and Mohan at the time of uploading of
objectionable post in face book. This had knowingly
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
and intentionally uploaded the post in the face book to
propagate the Maoist ideology amongst his close friends
with the intention of radicalizing recruiting them into
the proscribed terrorist organisation CPI (Maoist). He
used to post containing the ideology of Maoism to
attract youths.”
8. The antecedents of the appellant / A2 has been set out in paragraph
13 of the objections filed by the respondent as under;
Sl.No Case No. Remarks
1 Uthangarai Total 34 accused were arrested, Suresh
Cr.No.1005/2002 U/s 120(B), 147, 148, Rajan (A-4) prosecution trial under
332, 307, IPC R/W 25(1)(A) Indian Arms progress.
Act Sec 4&5 of Indian Explosive
Substances Act and Sec 174 Cr.P.C.
2 Madurai City Tallakulam PS Convicted.
Cr.No.486/13 u/s 110 Cr.P.C dated
13.05.2013
3 Cuddalore District Annamalai Nagar PS Total 3 accused. Suresh Rajan A3,
Cr.No.196/2018 U/s 124(A), 153(A)(1), under investigation
505(2), 120(B), 109 of IPC dated
11.10.2018
4 Coimbatore District, Kattoor PS Total 96 accused, under investigation
Cr.No.431/2019, U/s 143, 341 of IPC
dated 31.03.2019
5 Madurai City, K.Pudur, PS under investigation
IPC dated 10.01.2020
6 Madurai City, Tallakulam PS under investigation
Cr.No.2123/20, u/s 143, 341, 270 of IPC
dated 19.10.2020.
7 Chennai CCB-I, Cr.No.02/2021 u/s Total 3 accused Suresh Rajan A-2,
153(B), 505(1)(b), 505(1)(c), 505(2) of under investigation
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Sl.No Case No. Remarks
IPC and 13(1)(b) UA(P) Act, 1967 dated
02.01.2021
8 Salem District Thevattipatty PS Suresh Rajan arrested on 18.02.2021
Cr.No.14/2020 u/s 188, 120(B), 121-A, logged into Salem Central Prison.
124A of IPC r/w Sec 10, 13, 15 and 18 of
UA(P) Act, 1967 dated 18.01.2020
9 Salem City, Government Head Quarters under investigation
Hospital PS Cr.No.22/2019 u/s 143, 341,
124(A) IPC
10 Hasthampatti PS Cr.No.776/93 u/s 151 under investigation
Cr.P.C r/w 7(1)(a) CLA Act.
9. Regarding the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in
S.G.Vombatkere case cited supra, the Trial Court found that further
adjudication in respect of other sections, which would cause no prejudice to
the accused person. Thus, the Trial Court has considered the directions
issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
10. The materials considered by the Trial Court in the impugned order
would be sufficient for the purpose of proceeding with the trial.
11. Mr.R.Sankarasubbu, learned counsel for the petitioner would
submit that the appellant filed an affidavit stating that he will not involve in
such activities in future. Such an affidavit per se cannot be considered in a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
discharge petition by the High Court. It is for the appellant to participate in
the trial and establish his innocence or bona fide with reference to his
conduct.
12. In view of the facts and circumstances, we do not find any
infirmity or perversity in respect of the findings made in the judgement
impugned. Therefore, the same stands confirmed and consequently, the
Criminal Appeal is dismissed. Connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
[S.M.S., J.] [V.S.G., J.]
02.09.2024
Jeni
Index : Yes
Speaking order / Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation : Yes
To
1.The District and Sessions Judge,
Special Court under the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008,
Sessions Court for Exclusive Trial of Bomb Blast/POTA Cases,
Poonamallee, Chennai.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Union of India,
National Investigation Agency,
Chennai Branch.
3.The Special Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Madras,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Chennai – 600 104.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
