Madras High Court
Currently Lodged In vs /3 on 9 March, 2026
Author: P.Velmurugan
Bench: P.Velmurugan
Crl.A.Nos.18 of 2025 & 57 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 08 / 01 / 2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 09 / 03 / 2026
Coram:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
and
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN
Crl.A.Nos.18 & 57 of 2025
Aziz Ahamed @ Aziz Ahmed
@ Jaleel Aziz Ahmed,
S/o.Jaleel Ahmed,
No.62, AIBEA Nagar,
Thiruvanmiyur,
Chennai.
Also having address at
No.24, Brandon Road,
Birmingham,
United Kingdom
Currently lodged in,
Central Prison Puzhal - II,
Chennai.
... Appellant in
both Criminal Appeals
Vs.
1/30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2026 05:19:47 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.18 of 2025 & 57 of 2025
Union of India, Rep. by
The Inspector of Police,
National Investigation Agency,
Chennai - 600 010. ... Respondent in
(In R.C.No.01/2024/NIA/CHE) Crl.A.No.18 of 2025
Union of India,
National Investigation Agency,
Represented by
CIO/Addl.S.P.,
National Investigation Agency,
Branch Office.
Chennai - 600 010. ... Respondent in
Crl.A.No.57 of 2025
Prayer in Crl.A.No.18 of 2025: Criminal Appeal is filed under Section
21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 to set aside the order
passed in Crl.M.P.No.2447 of 2024, dated 26.11.2024 on the file of the
Special Court under the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, Sessions
Court for Exclusive Trial for Bomb Blast Cases, Chennai at Poonamallee,
Chennai and grant bail to the appellant in R.C.No.01/2024/NIA/CHE,
pending on the file of the respondent.
Prayer in Crl.A.No.57 of 2025: Criminal Appeal is filed under Section
21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, to call for the records
and set aside the impugned order passed in Crl.M.P.No.2608 of 2024, dated
22.11.2024 on the file of the Special Court under the National Agency Act,
2008, Sessions Court for Exclusive Trial for Bomb Blast Cases, Chennai at
Poonamallee, Chennai in R.C.No.01/2024/NIA/CHE and consequently
2/30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2026 05:19:47 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.18 of 2025 & 57 of 2025
enlarge the appellant/A5 on default bail in connection with
R.C.No.01/2024/NIA/CHE, dated 04.06.2024 pending on the file of the
respondent Police.
For Appellant in
both Appeals : Mr.T.Mohan
Senior Counsel
For Mr.I.Abdul Basith
For Respondent in
both Appeals : Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan
Additional Solicitor General
Assisted by Mr.R.Karthikeyan
Special Public Prosecutor
for NIA cases
*****
COMMON JUDGMENT
P.VELMURUGAN, J.
These Criminal Appeals are filed by the very same appellant
challenging two separate orders passed by the Special Court under the
National Agency Act, 2008, Sessions Court for Exclusive Trial for Bomb
Blast Cases, Chennai at Poonamallee (in short “the learned Special Judge”).
In Crl.A.No.57 of 2025, the appellant challenges the order dated 22.11.2024
passed in Crl.M.P.No.2608 of 2024, whereby the learned Special Judge
allowed the petition filed by the prosecution seeking extension of time for
3/30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2026 05:19:47 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.18 of 2025 & 57 of 2025
completion of investigation beyond the statutory period. In Crl.A.No.18 of
2025, the appellant challenges the order dated 26.11.2024 passed in
Crl.M.P.No.2447 of 2024, whereby the learned Special Judge dismissed the
petition filed by the appellant seeking enlargement on regular bail.
2. Since both the appeals are interlinked, they were heard together and
are being disposed of by this common judgment.
3.1. The case of the prosecution is that the respondent–National
Investigation Agency, on receipt of credible information from the Central
Government, registered a case in R.C.No.01/2024/NIA/CHE against several
accused persons, including the present appellant, who is arrayed as A5 in the
said case, for offences under Sections 13 and 18 of the Unlawful Activities
(Prevention) Act, 1967 (in short “UAPA Act“) read with Sections 120B,
3.2. It is the further case of the prosecution that the accused persons
are members of Hizb-ut-Tahrir (HuT), an organisation involved in activities
4/30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2026 05:19:47 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.18 of 2025 & 57 of 2025
of radicalisation and propagation of extremist ideology and in furtherance of
its unlawful objectives. According to the prosecution, the accused persons
were attempting to establish Khilafat rule in India by overthrowing the
existing democratic system and the constitutional Government of the
country.
3.3 It is further stated by the prosecution that the accused persons,
including the appellant/A5, were involved in organising secret meetings,
circulating radical and unlawful materials and attempting to indoctrinate and
recruit vulnerable persons in furtherance of the activities of the said
organisation. According to the prosecution, through such activities, the
accused propagated extremist ideology and encouraged persons to support
the objectives of the organisation and that such acts form part of a larger
conspiracy involving several persons.
3.4. During the course of investigation, a Look Out Circular had been
issued against certain accused, including the appellant, to prevent them from
leaving the country and to secure their presence for investigation. In
5/30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2026 05:19:47 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.18 of 2025 & 57 of 2025
connection with the said case, the appellant/A5 was arrested on 30.08.2024
at Bangalore Airport and was subsequently remanded to judicial custody on
31.08.2024.
3.5 In view of the nature and magnitude of the investigation and the
time required for collection and analysis of the materials, the prosecution
filed a petition in Crl.M.P.No.2608 of 2024 before the learned Special Judge,
seeking extension of time for completion of investigation beyond the
statutory period of 90 days and for extension of the period of judicial
custody of the accused upto 180 days. The learned Special Judge, upon
consideration of the materials placed and the stage of investigation, allowed
the said petition filed by the prosecution by order dated 22.11.2024 and
granted extension of time for completion of investigation. Thereafter, the
appellant filed a separate petition in Crl.M.P.No.2447 of 2024 seeking
enlargement on regular bail. The learned Special Judge, taking into account
the nature of the allegations, the materials collected during investigation and
the stage of the case, dismissed the said petition for regular bail by order
dated 26.11.2024.
6/30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2026 05:19:47 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.18 of 2025 & 57 of 2025
4. Aggrieved by the order granting extension of time for completion of
investigation and the order dismissing the petition for regular bail, the
appellant has preferred the present Criminal Appeals challenging both the
said orders.
5.1. The learned counsel would submit that the appellant has been
arrayed as A5 in RC.No.01/2024/NIA/CHE for alleged offences under
Sections 120B, 121A, 122 and 153B of IPC and Sections 13 and 18 of the
UAPA Act. It is submitted that the entire prosecution case, even if taken on
its face value, does not disclose any prima facie material to attract the
ingredients of the offences alleged against the appellant. The appellant is a
law-abiding person, a UK citizen and an Overseas Citizen of India, who
entered India through a valid passport and visa only to visit his ailing father
and remained in India for more than a month without any summons being
issued to him and was arrested only at the time of his departure from
Bangalore airport. The learned counsel would submit that the voluntary
entry of the appellant into India, despite the arrest of co-accused earlier,
demolishes the prosecution theory of conspiracy and clearly demonstrates
absence of any guilty intention.
7/30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2026 05:19:47 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.18 of 2025 & 57 of 2025
5.2. The learned counsel would further submit that the provisions of
the Act have been mechanically invoked without any material to show that
the appellant had committed, attempted to commit, advocated, abetted or
advised the commission of any terrorist act as defined under Section 15 of
the UAPA Act so as to attract Sections 13 or 18 of the said Act. It is
submitted that to attract Section 18 there must be material showing a specific
conspiracy or attempt to commit a terrorist act or any act preparatory thereto
and in the present case no such material has been produced. The allegation
of funding under Section 17 of the UAPA Act has been introduced only
through a belated supplementary charge sheet and is based merely on lawful
banking transactions without any material to show that the funds were
intended to be used for any terrorist act or terrorist organisation. Thus, the
invocation of Sections 13, 17 and 18 of the UAPA Act is wholly
unsustainable.
5.3. The learned counsel would submit that the witness statements
relied upon by the prosecution are vague, bald and hearsay in nature and do
not attribute any specific overt act to the appellant. Many of the witnesses do
8/30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2026 05:19:47 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.18 of 2025 & 57 of 2025
not even make any allegation against the appellant and at best refer to
alleged religious or ideological discussions. There is no recovery of
incriminating material from the appellant and no digital or documentary
evidence has been produced to establish any nexus with the alleged offences.
It is submitted that mere expression of religious or political opinion or
alleged ideological association cannot constitute an offence under UAPA Act
in the absence of any material showing involvement in terrorist activity.
Hence, there are no reasonable grounds for believing that the accusations
against the appellant are prima facie true within the meaning of Section
43D(5) of the UAPA Act.
5.4. The learned counsel would submit that the learned Special Judge,
while rejecting the bail petition, has mechanically invoked the rigours of
Section 43D of the UAPA Act without examining whether the prosecution
materials disclose the statutory ingredients of the alleged offences. The
learned counsel would rely upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Jalaluddin Khan vs. Union of India [(2024) MLJ (Crl) 441 (SC)],
and the recent judgment in Gulfisha Fatima vs. State (Govt. of NCT of
Delhi) [2026 SC INSC], wherein it has been held that the Court must
9/30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2026 05:19:47 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.18 of 2025 & 57 of 2025
undertake an accused-specific analysis and determine whether the material
discloses a real and meaningful nexus of the individual accused with the
alleged terrorist activity and that prolonged incarceration without likelihood
of early trial is a relevant factor for grant of bail even in cases under special
statutes. It is submitted that in the present case the learned Special Judge has
failed to undertake such an exercise and has rejected the bail petition in a
mechanical manner.
5.5. The learned counsel would further submit that the appellant was
arrested on 30.08.2024 and remanded to judicial custody on 31.08.2024 and
the statutory period of 90 days expired on 29.11.2024. The respondent
agency filed a petition seeking extension of time without disclosing any
specific progress in investigation or valid reasons necessitating further
detention. The learned Special Judge mechanically allowed the extension
petition and granted extension of 90 days in one stroke without satisfying the
mandatory requirements under Section 43D(2)(b) of the UAPA Act and
without proper production of the appellant at the time of consideration of the
extension petition. Such extension has resulted in deprivation of the
indefeasible right of the appellant to seek default bail and is in violation of
10/30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2026 05:19:47 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.18 of 2025 & 57 of 2025
the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jigar @ Jimmy
Pravinshandra Adatiya vs. State of Gujarat [MANU/SC/1233/2022]and
Bikramjit Singh vs. State of Punjab [(2020) 10 SCC 616], which hold that
the right to default bail is an integral part of the procedure established by law
under Article 21 of the Constitution.
5.6. The learned counsel would also submit that the appellant is
willing to abide by any stringent conditions that may be imposed by this
Court and undertakes not to tamper with evidence or influence witnesses.
5.7. The learned counsel would further submit, with particular
emphasis, on the serious medical condition of the appellant. It is submitted
that the appellant is a COVID-19 survivor and has developed severe cardiac
complications including arrhythmia and tachycardia, resulting in irregular
heartbeat and reduced cardiac function. The appellant has undergone
pulmonary vein isolation procedure and his lung capacity has significantly
reduced, requiring continuous medical supervision, inhalation support and
regular medication. It is submitted that due to continued incarceration the
11/30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2026 05:19:47 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.18 of 2025 & 57 of 2025
appellant has again begun to suffer severe cardiac symptoms and any neglect
in medical care may result in cardiac arrest, heart failure or life-threatening
stroke. The learned counsel would submit that detailed medical records were
placed before the learned Special Judge but the same were not properly
considered and no effective medical evaluation was ordered. The continued
incarceration of the appellant in such serious medical condition would
endanger his life and is violative of his fundamental right to life and personal
liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
5.8. The learned counsel would submit that the investigation is still
stated to be ongoing, supplementary charge sheets continue to be filed and
the trial has not commenced and is not likely to commence in the near
future. The appellant has already undergone prolonged incarceration and
continued detention would amount to pre-trial punishment. The learned
counsel would submit that the allegations against the appellant pertain to
events said to have occurred many years ago and are based on vague and
bald assertions without any specific particulars or overt acts and therefore
continued detention is wholly unjustified.
12/30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2026 05:19:47 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.18 of 2025 & 57 of 2025
5.9. The learned counsel would therefore submit that the impugned
orders passed by the learned Special Judge rejecting the bail petition and
granting extension of time for investigation are mechanical, illegal and
violative of the fundamental right to personal liberty guaranteed under
Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that there are no
reasonable grounds for believing that the accusations against the appellant
are prima facie true and the statutory rigours of Section 43D of the UAPA
are not attracted in the facts and circumstances of the case. Hence, the
learned counsel prays to set aside the impugned orders passed by the learned
Special Judges in both matters and enlarge the appellant on bail on such
conditions as may be deemed fit and proper.
6.1. The learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the
respondent–National Investigation Agency submitted that, based on credible
information received by the Central Government and having regard to the
gravity of the offences and their national and international ramifications, the
Central Government formed an opinion that scheduled offences under the
National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 had been committed. Pursuant to
the sanction accorded by the Ministry of Home Affairs, a case in RC
13/30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2026 05:19:47 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.18 of 2025 & 57 of 2025
No.01/2024/NIA/CHE dated 04.06.2024 came to be registered by the
respondent–NIA for offences under Sections 120B, 121A, 122 and 153B of
the IPC and Sections 13 and 18 of the UAPA Act, and the FIR was thereafter
placed before the learned Special Judge constituted under the NIA Act at
Poonamallee, Chennai.
6.2. The learned Additional Solicitor General submitted that during
the course of investigation, on the basis of documents and digital devices
seized from the residences of the accused Abdul Rehman (A1) and other co-
accused, it was revealed that the accused persons were followers of Hizb ut
Tahrir, an international fundamentalist organisation professing to work
towards the establishment of an Islamic Caliphate and enforcement of its
ideological framework. The forensic examination of the seized digital
devices disclosed several incriminating materials reflecting extremist and
radical ideology, electronic communications, foreign contacts and materials
intended for propagation and recruitment, thereby indicating the existence of
a wider conspiracy with national and international ramifications. The
investigation, according to the respondent, revealed that the accused persons
had engaged in a criminal conspiracy aimed at establishing an Islamic
14/30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2026 05:19:47 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.18 of 2025 & 57 of 2025
Caliphate in India by overthrowing the legally established Government and
had conducted clandestine classes for recruitment and radicalisation,
wherein participants were indoctrinated to reject democratic governance and
the constitutional framework of the country. The materials collected during
investigation also indicated that the present appellant/A5 played a significant
role in conducting such sessions and in propagating the ideology in different
parts of Tamil Nadu.
6.3. The learned Additional Solicitor General submitted that the
investigation further revealed that the appellant/A5, a foreign national
holding United Kingdom citizenship and residing abroad for considerable
periods, was actively involved in propagating the ideology of the
organisation and had travelled to India from abroad in furtherance of such
activities. The appellant was intercepted at Bangalore Airport on 30.08.2024
pursuant to a Look Out Circular, arrested after due compliance with legal
formalities and produced before the learned Special Judge, whereupon he
was remanded to judicial custody. It was submitted that the mobile phone
and other digital devices of the appellant were seized and forwarded for
forensic examination and that the mirror images already scrutinised disclose
15/30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2026 05:19:47 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.18 of 2025 & 57 of 2025
incriminating materials, though the final forensic report is awaited. The
investigation in respect of the appellant, it was pointed out, is still in
progress, several witnesses remain to be examined and vital aspects such as
source of funding and foreign linkages are yet to be fully unravelled, thereby
necessitating continued custodial detention.
6.4. The learned Additional Solicitor General submitted that after
collection of sufficient materials, a charge sheet has already been filed
against certain co-accused and that the investigation as against the appellant
and other accused persons is continuing. A detailed report was filed by the
Special Public Prosecutor before the learned Special Judge under the proviso
to Section 43D(2) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act seeking
extension of time for completion of investigation beyond the initial period of
ninety days, clearly setting out the progress of investigation and the specific
reasons necessitating further detention. The learned Special Judge, upon
perusal of the report, the objections filed by the accused and after hearing
both sides, was satisfied regarding the progress of investigation and the
necessity for further detention and accordingly extended the period of
judicial custody from 90 days to 180 days by order dated 22.11.2024. It was
submitted that the said order was passed strictly in accordance with statutory
16/30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2026 05:19:47 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.18 of 2025 & 57 of 2025
requirements and well within the period of initial remand, and that the
contention of the appellant regarding lack of opportunity or violation of
safeguards is not supported by the record, as the petition was filed well in
advance, copies were furnished, objections were filed and arguments were
heard before the order was passed and communicated within the statutory
period.
6.5. The learned Additional Solicitor General submitted that the claim
of innocence and voluntary return to India projected by the appellant is not
borne out by the materials collected during investigation. According to the
respondent, the appellant became aware of his arraignment as an accused
only upon his arrival in India and thereafter attempted to alter his travel
plans and leave the country, but was intercepted pursuant to the Look Out
Circular. Such conduct, it was submitted, demonstrates a clear flight risk,
particularly in view of the appellant being a foreign national with residence
and connections abroad.
17/30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2026 05:19:47 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.18 of 2025 & 57 of 2025
6.6. The learned Additional Solicitor General submitted that the nature
and gravity of the allegations, which have serious implications for national
security and involve an alleged conspiracy with wider ramifications, warrant
a cautious and restrained approach in the matter of bail. The investigation,
according to the respondent, has revealed foreign connections, digital
evidence and organisational involvement which require thorough and
uninterrupted investigation. Grant of bail at this stage, it was submitted,
would seriously prejudice the ongoing investigation and there exists a real
possibility of the appellant influencing witnesses, tampering with evidence
or evading the process of law. It was further submitted that the decisions
relied upon by the appellant are distinguishable on facts and that the settled
principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court emphasise that while
personal liberty is a valuable right, the same must be balanced against the
larger interests of society and the statutory restrictions imposed by special
enactments such as the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.
6.7. The learned Additional Solicitor General submitted, in
conclusion, that the learned Special Judge has carefully considered the
materials on record, the relevant statutory provisions and the stage of
18/30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2026 05:19:47 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.18 of 2025 & 57 of 2025
investigation and has passed reasoned orders both in extending the period for
completion of investigation and in declining bail to the appellant. No
illegality, perversity or procedural infirmity, according to the respondent, is
made out warranting interference by this Court in exercise of appellate
jurisdiction. Hence, having regard to the seriousness of the allegations, the
prima facie materials collected during the course of investigation, the
statutory bar under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA Act, the ongoing
investigation, and the apprehension that the appellant may abscond or
interfere with the course of justice, the learned Additional Advocate General
submits that both the appeals are liable to be dismissed.
7. This Court has carefully considered the submissions made by the
learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the entire materials
available on record.
8. Both these Criminal Appeals arise out of the same case in RC
No.01/2024/NIA/CHE and challenge two interconnected orders passed by
the learned Special Judge for NIA Cases, Chennai. One appeal is directed
19/30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2026 05:19:47 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.18 of 2025 & 57 of 2025
against the order granting extension of time for completion of investigation
under the proviso to Section 43D(2) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention)
Act, 1967, and the other appeal challenges the order rejecting the appellant’s
petition for regular bail. Since both appeals arise from the same set of facts
and involve overlapping issues, they are considered together and are
disposed of by this common judgment.
9. The present case was registered by the respondent–National
Investigation Agency on the basis of information received from the Central
Government alleging unlawful and extremist activities by certain individuals
associated with an organisation said to be engaged in radicalisation and
propagation of unlawful ideology. The appellant has been arrayed as A5 in
the said case. According to the prosecution, the materials collected during
the course of investigation indicate that the accused persons were involved
in activities of radicalisation and propagation of extremist ideology in
furtherance of unlawful objectives. The appellant was arrested on
30.08.2024 at Bangalore Airport pursuant to a Look Out Circular and has
been in judicial custody since 31.08.2024.
20/30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2026 05:19:47 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.18 of 2025 & 57 of 2025
10. It is not in dispute that the statutory period of ninety days for
completion of investigation was due to expire. Prior to the expiry of the said
period, the prosecution filed a petition seeking extension of time up to
180 days under the proviso to Section 43D(2) of the UAPA Act. By order
dated 22.11.2024, the learned Special Judge allowed the said petition after
hearing both sides.
11. The principal contention of the appellant is that the extension was
granted mechanically without demonstrating real progress in the
investigation or specific reasons necessitating further detention. This Court
is unable to accept the said contention. The records disclose that the
prosecution filed a detailed report indicating the stage of investigation, the
materials already collected, the seizure and forensic examination of digital
devices and the necessity for further investigation into electronic
communications, foreign linkages and other connected aspects. The report
also specifically set out the reasons necessitating additional time for
completion of the investigation.
21/30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2026 05:19:47 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.18 of 2025 & 57 of 2025
12. The records further reveal that the petition seeking extension was
filed well within the original statutory period, copies were furnished to the
accused, objections were filed on behalf of the appellant and both sides were
heard before the order was passed. The learned Special Judge has recorded
satisfaction regarding the progress of investigation and the necessity for
continued detention of the accused for effective completion of the
investigation. The requirements of the proviso to Section 43D(2) of the
UAPA Act thus stand complied with.
13. It is also relevant to note that the prosecution had placed materials
before the trial Court explaining the stage of investigation. The report
indicates that charge sheet had already been filed against some of the
accused and investigation in respect of the remaining aspects of the case was
still in progress. It was further pointed out that the appellant was arrested
pursuant to a Look Out Circular and that he is a citizen of the United
Kingdom and an Overseas Citizen of India, having residence outside India.
The prosecution has also explained that collection of materials relating to
foreign linkages and electronic communications is a time-consuming process
and therefore sought further time for completing the investigation.
22/30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2026 05:19:47 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.18 of 2025 & 57 of 2025
14. Section 43D(2) of the UAPA Act makes it clear that if the Court is
satisfied with the report of the Public Prosecutor indicating the progress of
investigation and the specific reasons for detention of the accused beyond 90
days, the Court may extend the period of investigation up to 180 days. In the
present case, the learned Special Judge, upon considering the materials
placed by the prosecution, granted extension of a further period of 90 days
for filing the charge sheet. This Court finds that the said order reflects due
application of mind and cannot be said to have been passed mechanically. In
the absence of any procedural illegality or non-application of mind, this
Court finds no infirmity in the order dated 22.11.2024 granting extension of
time. The challenge to the said order therefore fails.
15. Insofar as the rejection of regular bail is concerned, the offences
alleged include provisions under the UAPA Act along with serious offences
under the Indian Penal Code relating to conspiracy and activities affecting
national security. Upon perusal of the case diary or the report filed by the
investigating agency, if the Court is of the opinion that there are reasonable
grounds for believing that the accusations against the accused are prima
facie true, bail shall not be granted.
23/30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2026 05:19:47 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.18 of 2025 & 57 of 2025
16. A reading of the order passed by the learned Special Judge also
indicates that the Court has clearly recorded a finding that there exist prima
facie materials against the appellant. It is well settled that granting bail is a
discretionary power of the Court. However, such discretion must be
exercised judicially and upon proper application of mind to the materials
placed before the Court. Once the trial Court has applied its mind and
exercised its discretion judicially, the appellate Court would ordinarily
refrain from interfering with such an order unless it is shown to suffer from
perversity or illegality.
17. At the stage of consideration of bail under a special statute, the
Court is not required to undertake a detailed examination of the evidence or
assess the credibility of witnesses. The Court is only required to form a
prima facie opinion on the basis of the materials placed before it. The
sufficiency or otherwise of the evidence is a matter to be decided during the
course of trial.
24/30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2026 05:19:47 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.18 of 2025 & 57 of 2025
18. The materials placed before this Court, including the documents
filed by the respondent agency and the statements of witnesses recorded
during the course of investigation, prima facie indicate the role attributed to
the appellant in connection with the activities under investigation. The
learned Special Judge has taken note of these materials and has recorded
satisfaction that the accusations against the appellant are prima facie true.
On perusal of the records, this Court finds that such satisfaction cannot be
said to be arbitrary or perverse.
19. The offences alleged in the present case relate to activities
affecting national security. Whether the materials ultimately prove the
charge against the accused is a matter that can be determined only after the
filing of the final report and during the course of trial. At the stage of
granting or refusing bail, the Court is only required to examine whether
sufficient prima facie materials have been placed by the prosecution.
20. The contention of the appellant that no specific overt act has been
attributed to him and that the materials relied upon by the prosecution are
25/30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2026 05:19:47 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.18 of 2025 & 57 of 2025
insufficient to establish his involvement are matters which can appropriately
be examined during the course of trial. At the stage of considering bail, it is
sufficient if the materials placed before the Court show a reasonable
connection between the accused and the alleged unlawful activities.
21. The further submission of the appellant that he voluntarily entered
India and therefore is not a flight risk has been considered. However, the
records show that a Look Out Circular had already been issued and the
appellant was intercepted at the airport and arrested. The appellant is a
foreign national having residence and connections abroad. In such
circumstances, the apprehension expressed by the prosecution that the
appellant may abscond cannot be said to be unreasonable.
22. Considerable emphasis has been placed by the learned counsel for
the appellant on the medical condition of the appellant. It is submitted that
the appellant is suffering from certain cardiac and pulmonary ailments which
require medical supervision and medication. The right to health is an integral
part of the right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of
26/30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2026 05:19:47 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.18 of 2025 & 57 of 2025
India. However, the respondent submits that the appellant is being provided
with the necessary medical treatment and is under regular medical
monitoring while in custody. In such circumstances, the existence of medical
issues by itself cannot be a ground for grant of bail in a case where statutory
restrictions apply, particularly when adequate medical care can be provided
while the accused remains in custody.
23. Nevertheless, to ensure that the appellant receives proper medical
care, this Court directs the Superintendent of the concerned Central Prison to
refer the appellant to a Medical Board, Rajiv Gandhi Government General
Hospital, within 2 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order,
after completing the necessary formalities. The Medical Board shall examine
the appellant, assess his present medical condition and suggest appropriate
treatment, if required. The prison authorities shall ensure that the appellant
receives medical treatment as recommended by the Medical Board and that
his health condition is regularly monitored.
27/30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2026 05:19:47 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.18 of 2025 & 57 of 2025
24. On an overall consideration of the materials placed on record, the
nature of the allegations, the stage of investigation and the statutory
provisions governing the case, this Court is of the view that the learned
Special Judge has passed reasoned orders both in granting extension of time
for completion of investigation and in rejecting the prayer for regular bail.
This Court does not find any perversity, illegality or material irregularity in
the impugned orders warranting interference in exercise of appellate
jurisdiction. There is no quarrel with the decisions relied on by the learned
counsel for the appellant, but those decisions are not applicable to the facts
and circumstances of the present case on hand.
25. Accordingly, Crl.A.No.57 of 2025 and Crl.A.No.18 of 2025 are
dismissed.
[P.V.J.,] [M.J.R.J.,]
09 / 03 / 2026
Speaking Order
Neutral Citation case: Yes
rns
28/30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2026 05:19:47 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.18 of 2025 & 57 of 2025
To
1. The Special Court under the National
Investigation Agency Act, 2008,
Sessions Court for Exclusive Trial for Bomb Blast Cases,
Chennai at Poonamallee.
2. The Inspector of Police,
National Investigation Agency,
Union of India, Rep. by
Chennai – 600 010.
(In R.C.No.01/2024/NIA/CHE)
3. The CIO/Addl.S.P.,
National Investigation Agency,
Branch Office.
Chennai – 600 010.
4.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison Puzhal – II,
Chennai.
5.The Dean,
Rajiv Gandhi Government General Hospital,
Chennai.
6. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Madras.
29/30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2026 05:19:47 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.18 of 2025 & 57 of 2025
P.VELMURUGAN. J.
and
M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.
rns
Pre-Delivery Judgement in
Crl.A.Nos.18 & 57 of 2025
09 / 03 / 2026
30/30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2026 05:19:47 pm )
