[Cites 9, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
Mohamed Sirajudeen vs The State Of Tamil Nadu Rep. By on 6 January, 2026
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Crl.A.(MD) No.944 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated: 06/01/2026
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
and
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.POORNIMA
Crl.A.(MD) No.944 of 2025
Mohamed Sirajudeen : Appellant/A5
-vs-
1.The State of Tamil Nadu rep. By
The Inspector of Police
Melapalayam Police Station,
Tirunelveli City.
(Crime No.354/2024)
2.The Inspector of Police
Anti-Terrorism Squad(ATS)
Madurai. : Respondents/Complainants
Prayer:-Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 21(2) of NIA Act,
2008 to set aside the order passed by the learned Principal District and
Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli, in Cr.M.P.No.3754 of 2025, dated 26.08.2025.
For Appellant : Mr.G.Karuppasamy Pandian
for Mr.A.Subramanian
For Respondents : Mr.T.Senthil Kumar
Additional Public Prosecutor
1/13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/01/2026 07:38:23 pm )
Crl.A.(MD) No.944 of 2025
JUDGMENT
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN.,J
This Criminal Appeal has been filed seeking to set aside the
order of the learned Principal Sessions judge, Tirunelveli in Cr.M.P.No.
3754 of 2025, dated 26.08.2025.
2. The brief facts of the case are as under:
2.1 Based on the complaint lodged by the de-facto complainant
Manikandan, a case was registered on 16.11.2024 at 13.30 hrs in Crime
No. 354 of 2024 under Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act , 1908 on
the file of the Melapalayam Police Station.
2.2.The de-facto complainant who is the lessee of the Alangar
theatre had taken the theatre on 12 years lease and after renovating had
been running the same for three years. Ganguva featuring Surya and
Amaran featuring Sivakarthikeyan were screened in the theatre and on
16.11.2024 at about 3.05 a.m., watchman of the theatre had called him
over phone and informed that two persons had hurled
petrol bomb into the theatre and ran away and he had immediately gone
to the theatre and intimated the same to the police and showed them the
CCTV footage and he has given complaint and thereby requested the
first respondent police to take action.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/01/2026 07:38:23 pm )
2.3 The case was taken up for investigation by the first respondent
upon recovery of CCTV footages. A2/Mohamed Yusuf Raseen was
arrested on 20.11.2024. A3/Syed Mohammed Buhari was arrested on
19.11.2024 respectively and remanded to judicial custody. Based on the
investigation, first respondent altered the sections of law into Section
196,113(2) of BNS along with Section 3 of Explosives Substance Act 1908
and alteration reports were filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate,
Tirunelveli on 19.11.2024 and 20.11.2024 respectively. Subsequently
pursuant to the Chief Officer proceedings in RC No.05915/Crime
3(2)/2024, dated 28.11.2024, investigation in this case was transferred to
the second respondent and the second respondent took up the case for
further investigation on 08.12.2024 and during the course of
investigation, further witnesses were examined and based on the
materials gathered five other accused were arrested and remanded to
judicial custody. Further, based on the materials alteration report was
filed invoking Sections 61(2), 249, 196 and 113(2)(b) of the BNS along
with Section 3 of the Explosives Substances Act. The said alteration
report was filed before the Judicial Magistrate Court No.V, Tirunelveli
on 25.01.2025.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/01/2026 07:38:23 pm )
2.4. During the course of investigation, it had come to light that
A1/Imthiyas who is the member of banned organization Al-umma was
the mastermind behind the incident. He was absconding for more than
two months and was eventually arrested on 22.01.2025. Thereafter, the
appellant filed Crl.M.P.No.3754 of 2025 seeking bail and the learned
Principal Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli had dismissed the application, on
26/08/2025. Against which, the present appeal has been filed.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/A5 would
submit that the appellant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated
in this case based on the confession statement given by A1 and A2 as if
the appellant had given asylum to the accused knowing well that they
were involved in the offence. He would further submit that except the
confession statement and certain call records said to have been collected
by the respondents, there is no other evidence to incriminate the
appellant to the crime. The respondent have completed investigation
and filed final report and there is no possibility of interfering with the
investigation. He would further submit that the appellant is a resident
of Tirunelveli District and he is aged about 20 years and a permanent
resident and he is ready to furnish sufficient sureties for release on bail.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/01/2026 07:38:23 pm )
Even taking into consideration the allegations against the appellant, it
would not fall within the definition of Section 2(k) and Section 15 of the
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. Even as per the charge sheet,
the appellant is said to have committed the offence punishable under
Section 19 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention ) Act, 1967.
4. He would further submit that the statutory restrictions
contained in Section 43-D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention ) Act,
1967 is not absolute for grant of bail and in this case, the respondent has
cited 110 witnesses and hundreds of documents and in such
circumstances, the possibility of the trial being completed soon is also
not possible. When there is no possibility to complete the trial, the
appellant’s fundamental right has to be protected as enshrined under
Article 21 of the Constitution of India and he may be granted bail. In
support of his contention, the learned counsel appearing for the
appellant relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case
of Union of India .vs. K.A.Najeeb reported in AIR 2021 SC 712. He
would further submit that the co-accused/A7-Yasar Arafath was
enlarged on bail by this Court, by order, dated 12/08/2025 made in
Crl.A(MD)No.719 of 2025.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/01/2026 07:38:23 pm )
5. The 2nd respondent police has filed a detailed counter. The
learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the appellant is
arrayed as A5 in this case. During the course of investigation, it came to
light that A1 who is the member of banned outfit namely Al-umma
objected the screening of the movie Amaran at Alangar Theatre at
Melapalayam and that he had conspired with the other accused and had
directed A2 and A3 to hurl petrol bombs into the theatre while screening
movie with an intention to instil terror in the minds of the public. To
execute the said plan A1 had given financial assistance to A7 and
pursuant to the same A2 and A3 prepared petrol bomb and had hurled it
into the theatre. Thereafter A2 and A3 attempted to successfully evade
arrest and approached the appellant/A5 who had purposefully and
voluntarily abetted the concealment of A2 and A3 by providing
monetary assistance and mobile phone with sim card and also by
offering his two wheeler. The appellant/A5 being the associate of A1
and A2 knowing their evil designs had voluntarily harboured A2 at the
plumbing godown on the night on 17.11.2024 to help them escape from
the clutches of law. Subsequently he was also in constant touch with the
other accused. Apart from that witnesses L.W.15,L.W.16 and LW.31 have
spoken about the involvement of the appellant. The appellant is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/01/2026 07:38:23 pm )
involved in serious offence and the principles for grant of bail in serious
offences especially under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention ) Act, 1967
are governed by the twin conditions laid down under Section 43-D (5) of
the act and the conditions being not satisfied by the appellant, he may
not be entitled for bail, thereby he would seek for dismissal of the bail.
6. This Court perused the entire records and case diary and the
final report filed by the respondent police under Section 173 of Cr.P.C.,
7. The allegation against the appellant is that he is an associate of
A1 who is a member of the banned organization Al-umma and that A1
in conspiracy with the other accused had in order to create terror in the
minds of the people had directed A2 and A3 to hurl petrol bomb into the
theatre and thereafter A5 knowing well about the terrorist activities of
the other accused had harboured them and given them financial
support. The appellant was arrested on 28.12.2024.
8. Admittedly even as per the prosecution no serious damage or
destruction had happened and there is no loss to the life. At the most the
charge against the appellant can be that he had harboured the accused.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/01/2026 07:38:23 pm )
In this case, the investigation has been completed and the final report
has been filed and the case has been taken on file in S.C.No.423 of 2025
by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli. In this case the
respondent police had cited 110 witnesses and more than 100 documents
are relied upon and thereby the likelihood of the trial being completed
soon is also not possible.
9. In the case of Union of India .vs. K.A.Najeeb as referred above it
has been held that presence of the statutory restrictions like 43-D(5) of
the Unlawful Activities (Prevention ) Act, 1967 perse to does not oust the
ability of Constitutional Court to grant bail on ground of violation of
Part III of the Constitution. In K.A.Najeeb referred above it has been held
as follows:
“18. It is thus clear to us that the presence of statutory
restrictions like Section 43-D (5) of UAPA per-se does not oust the
ability of Constitutional Courts to grant bail on grounds of violation of
Part III of the Constitution. Indeed, both the restrictions under a Statue
as well as the powers exercisable under Constitutional Jurisdiction can
be well harmonised. Whereas at commencement of proceedings, Courts
are expected to appreciate the legislative policy against grant of bail but
the rigours of such provisions will melt down where there is no likelihood
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/01/2026 07:38:23 pm )
of trial being completed within a reasonable time and the period of
incarceration already undergone has exceeded a substantial part of the
prescribed sentence. Such an approach would safeguard against the
possibility of provisions like Section 43-D (5) of UAPA being used as the
sole metric for denial of bail or for wholesale breach of constitutional
right to speedy trial.
19. Adverting to the case at hand, we are conscious of the fact that
the charges levelled against the respondent are grave and a serious threat
to societal harmony. Had it been a case at the threshold, we would have
outrightly turned down the respondent’s prayer. However, keeping in
mind the length of the period spent by him in custody and the
unlikelihood of the trial being completed anytime soon, the High Court
appears to have been left with no other option except to grant bail. An
attempt has been made to strike a balance between the appellant’s right to
lead evidence of its choice and establish the charges beyond any doubt
and simultaneously the respondent’s rights guaranteed under Part III of
our Constitution have been well protected”
10. Having gone through the records, this Court arrives at the
conclusion that the appellant having satisfied the twin conditions under
Section 43-D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/01/2026 07:38:23 pm )
entitled for bail. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the
case and also the fact that the appellant is in judicial custody since
28/12/2024 and that the charge sheet has already been filed before the
learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli and the case is
taken on file in Special S.C.No.423 of 2025, this Court is inclined to allow
the Criminal Appeal by setting aside the order, dated 26.08.2025 made in
Cr.M.P.No.3754 of 2025 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions
Judge, Tirunelveli.
11.Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is allowed and the order,
dated 26/08/2025 made in Cr.M.P.No.3754 of 2025 on the file of the
learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli, is set aside. The appellant
is ordered to be released on bail on his executing a bond for a sum of
Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties ( of which
one shall be a Government surety and another shall be a blood
relative), each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Principal
Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli, and on further conditions that:
(a) the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb
Impression in the surety bond and the learned Principal Sessions Judge,
Tirunelveli may obtain a copy of their valid identity card to ensure their
identity.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/01/2026 07:38:23 pm )
(b)the appellant is directed to appear before the Trial Court on all
working days at 10:30 a.m., until further orders.
(c)the appellant shall not tamper with evidence or witness either
during trial.
(d)On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned
Judge/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the
appellant in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed
and the appellant released on bail by the learned Judge/Trial Court
himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs.
State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560].
[G.K.I.,J] [R.P.,J]
06.01.2026
Internet : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
ER
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/01/2026 07:38:23 pm )
To
1. The Principal Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli
2. The Inspector of Police
Melapalayam Police Station,
Tirunelveli City.
3.The Inspector of Police
Anti-Terrorism Squad(ATS), Madurai
4. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Palayamkottai
5. The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
6. The Record keeper
Vernacular Records, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/01/2026 07:38:23 pm )
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN., J.
and
R.POORNIMA, J..
ER
06.01.2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/01/2026 07:38:23 pm )
