The Kerala High Court recently refused interim bail petition of three people convicted by a trial court under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA).
A division bench of Justice Alexander Thomas and Justice Sophy Thomas refused to grant interim bail or suspend the sentences of three people convicted by a trial court under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) of attempting to join the terrorist organisation ISIS/Daish and engaging in violent jihad.
The Court was considering sentence suspension applications filed by three people convicted by a special court in July 2022 under various provisions of the UAPA and the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Two of the accused were sentenced to 7 years and one to 6 years rigorous imprisonment. The sentences were to be offset by the time they had spent behind bars already.
Then they moved the High Court, challenging the Special Court’s decision. They also moved the present applications to suspend their sentence during the pendency of the appeal.
They contended that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt and that they stood a good chance of winning the appeal. As a result, they sought bail because they had already served more than half of their sentence and their appeals would be rendered ineffective otherwise.
The respondent National Investigation Agency (NIA) opposed the applications moved by the appellants. Appearing for the respondent, Deputy Solicitor General, S Manu argued that if the appellants are released on bail, there is every chance for them to abscond and indulge in terrorist activities.
After reviewing the Supreme Court’s precedents on the subject, the Court stated that the nature of the accusations against the accused, the manner in which the crime is alleged to have been committed, the gravity of the offence, and its social impact must all be considered when considering an application for suspension of sentence and release on bail.
Given the gravity of the allegations in this case, the Court decided to consider their applications on the merits to determine whether there were prima facie reasons to grant bail.
The Court was unable to find any clear flaw in its order of conviction and sentence after reviewing the important materials discussed by the special court.
“Moreover, considering the nature and gravity of the offences alleged, which are affecting the integrity of the nation and security and liberty of its citizens, the discretion has to be exercised with more care and caution, and not in a casual manner. Prima facie nothing is there, cogent enough to raise substantial doubts regarding the validity of the conviction,” the Court stated as it dismissed the petition.
