Madras High Court
Suresh vs The Union Of India on 9 May, 2025
Crl.A.No.346 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 09.05.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE N. MALA
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G. ARUL MURUGAN
Crl.A.No.346 of 2025
Suresh Appellant
vs.
The Union of India
represented by
Inspector of Police
National Investigation Agency
Chennai 600 010 Respondent
Criminal Appeal filed under Section 2(1)(i) of the National
Investigation Agency Act seeking to set aside the order dated
17.03.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.124 of 2025 on the file of the Special
Court under the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, Poonamallee,
Chennai.
For appellant Mr. R. Sankarasubbu
For respondent Mr. R. Karthikeyan
Special Public Prosecutor
for NIA Act Cases
-----
Page Nos.1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/05/2025 09:14:51 pm )
Crl.A.No.346 of 2025
JUDGMENT
(delivered by G. ARUL MURUGAN, J.)
This criminal appeal is filed challenging the order dated
17.03.2025 made in Crl.M.P.No.124 of 2025 in Spl.S.C.No.27 of 2022
on the file of the Special Court under the National Investigation Agency
Act, 2008 (Sessions Court for Exclusive Trial of Bomb Blast Cases and
Spl. Court for NIA Cases), Chennai at Poonamallee (for brevity “the
Special Court”).
2. The appellant is the second accused in Spl.S.C.No.27 of
2022. The appellant was arrested and thereafter, pursuant to the bail
application filed by him, he was enlarged on bail by the order of this
Court on 24.02.2022 in Criminal Appeal No.157 of 2022. Thereafter,
pursuant to his release on bail, the appellant had been attending the
Court hearings and for the hearing dates on which he was not able to
appear, petitions under Section 317 Cr.P.C. were filed. Since the
appellant did not appear before the Special Court on 14.11.2024, an
NBW was issued against him and the appellant, who was already
remanded in custody in the other case, was remanded in the present
case also. The appellant had filed a bail application in Crl.M.P.No.124
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/05/2025 09:14:51 pm )
of 2025, which came to be rejected by order dated 17.03.2025 on the
ground that he had not appeared before the Special Court on several
hearings from 16.10.2023 to 13.11.2024 and, therefore, the Special
Court had recorded that the appellant has adopted dilatory tactics to
delay the framing of charges.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that in
fact, the appellant had been appearing before the Special Court on all
hearing dates and whenever he was not able to attend, petitions under
Section 317 C.P.C. were filed and the same were ordered by the
Special Court and only on 14.11.2024, since the appellant was
remanded in the other case, he was not able to appear before the
Special Court in the instant case and the Special Court has not taken
into consideration the same and and hence, the present appeal.
4. The learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the
respondent, on instructions and by filing objections, submitted that
since the appellant who was enlarged on bail had not appeared before
the Special Court, he was remanded and therefore, since he was
indulging in dilatory tactics, trial was not able to be proceeded and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/05/2025 09:14:51 pm )
hence, the Special Court has rightly dismissed the application for grant
of bail.
5. We have considered the rival submissions and also perused
the material available on record.
6. The appellant is the second accused in Spl.S.C.No.27 of
2022 on the file of the Special Court. The appellant was arrested in the
above case and thereafter, by the order of this Court dated 24.02.2022
in Criminal Appeal No.157 of 2022, he was enlarged on bail. There is
yet another case pending as against the appellant in Spl.S.C.No.3 of
2022 on the file of the Special Court under the Prevention of Terrorism
Act, Poonamallee, Chennai. In the said case also, the appellant was
arrested on 24.11.2022 and thereafter, by the order of this Court, he
was enlarged on bail on 22.01.2007. In the said case, since the
appellant did not appear before the Court on 13.11.2024, a petition
under Section 317 Cr.P.C. was filed and the same was dismissed and
an NBW was issued against the appellant. Pursuant to the execution
of the warrant, the appellant was remanded to judicial custody on
24.11.2024.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/05/2025 09:14:51 pm )
7. In the above backdrop, when the matter came up for
hearing yesterday, we granted time to the learned Special Public
Prosecutor to ascertain as to whether the appellant either appeared
before the Special Court or filed petitions under Section 317 Cr.P.C.
prior to 13.11.2024, i.e. the date on which he was remanded in the
instant case.
8. On instructions, learned Special Public Prosecutor
submitted that prior to 13.11.2024, the appellant either appeared
before the Special Court or filed petitions under Section 317 Cr.P.C. on
the dates he did not appear and the same were allowed.
9. Therefore, it is clear that only due to the fact that the
appellant was remanded in the case in Spl.S.C. No.3 of 2022 on
13.11.2024, he was not able to appear before the Special Court in the
instant case.
10. In fact, seeking bail in the other case, the appellant had
filed an application which was dismissed by the Special Court by order
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/05/2025 09:14:51 pm )
dated 19.12.2024 in Crl.M.P.No.2665 of 2024 in Spl.S.C.No.3 of 2022
against which the appellant preferred an appeal before this Court in
Crl.A.No.217 of 2025 and this Court, by judgment dated 12.03.2025,
had allowed the said appeal and enlarged the appellant on bail on
certain conditions.
11. Considering the fact that the appellant was remanded in
the other case and only due to that, he was not in a position to appear
before the Special Court in the instant case and also the fact that by
the order of this Court dated 12.03.2025 in Crl.A.No.217 of 2025, the
appellant has been enlarged on bail, we are inclined to allow this
criminal appeal and enlarge the appellant on bail on similar conditions.
12. In view of the above, the impugned order dated
17.03.2025 passed by the Special Court is set aside and consequently,
the appellant shall be released on bail on the following conditions:
i. that the appellant furnishes two sureties on execution of
a bond for a sum of Rs.5,000/- each to the satisfaction
of the Special Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/05/2025 09:14:51 pm )
ii. the appellant shall report before the Special Court every
day at 10.30 a.m. without fail; and
iii. if the appellant is absent for any of the hearings, it is
open to the Special Court to secure him and take further
action.
13. In the result, this criminal appeal is allowed.
(N.M., J.) (G.A.M.,J.)
09.05.2025
cad/bbr
To
1. The Special Court under the NIA Act, 2008
Poonamallee, Chennai
2. The Inspector of Police
National Investigation Agency
Chennai 600 010
3. The Special Public Prosecutor for NIA Act Cases
Chennai
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/05/2025 09:14:51 pm )
N. MALA, J.
and
G. ARUL MURUGAN, J.
cad/bbr
09.05.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/05/2025 09:14:51 pm )
