The Madras High Court granted bail to Madurai-based lawyer M Mohammed Abbas, who was arrested under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) by the National Investigating Agency (NIA) on charges of being an alleged member of the banned Popular Front of India (PFI).
A bench comprising Justices M Sundar and R Sakthivel also rejected the NIA’s oral request for leave under Article 134 of the Constitution to challenge the bail order before the Supreme Court.
N Bhaskaran, the NIA Special Public Prosecutor, sought the oral leave, contending that Section 43 D of the UAPA, under which Abbas was charged, bars the grant of bail, and the High Court’s interpretation of this provision needed examination.
However, the bench stated that the Supreme Court had already examined and interpreted the proviso under Section 43D(5) on the grant of bail under UAPA in several previous cases. The High Court referred to these Supreme Court orders while granting bail in the present case, leading the bench to conclude that no grounds for leave under Article 134 existed.
The bench, however, dismissed Abbas’s quashing petition, in which he claimed that his arrest was a clear case of malafide as the NIA had targeted him due to a Facebook post and a complaint he made against one of its Superintendents of Police. The High Court ruled that the issue of malafide should be decided by the special court during the trial.
Additionally, the High Court closed the Habeas Corpus petition filed by Abbas’s family members following his arrest.
Abbas and four others were arrested by the NIA on May 9 in connection with the Tamil Nadu PFI criminal conspiracy case.
According to a press release by the NIA, investigations revealed that the accused had conspired and planned to eliminate their ‘perceived enemies’ who were not aligned with the PFI ideology and opposed its plans to establish an Islamic State in India by 2047. The release further stated that the accused had radicalized a significant number of PFI cadres, especially youth, and trained them in using various weapons to assault, maim, and kill their adversaries.
During the proceedings, Abbas’s counsel R Vivekananthan and office bearers of the Madurai Bar Association vouched for Abbas, stating that he was a senior and respected member of the Bar, with 16 years of practice experience. They highlighted that he had contested and secured 900 votes in the last TN Bar Council elections. Advocate Vivekananthan also mentioned that Abbas had regularly appeared in courts for the PFI until its ban and was thus being victimized.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the NIA, informed the Court that the central agency had substantial evidence, including an “incriminating” audio clip against Abbas. He asserted that the agency had handled the matter cautiously due to Abbas’s profession as a lawyer, emphasizing that being a lawyer should not guarantee protection for an accused.
