Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 2331 (MAD)

Mohamed Zaid v. Union of India

2025-04-28

M.S.RAMESH, N.SENTHILKUMAR

body2025
JUDGMENT : N.SENTHILKUMAR, J. Challenging the dismissal of bails applications filed by the appellants in Crl.M.P. Nos.387 and 388 of 2024 in Spl.C.C. No.23 of 2022 dated 08.04.2024 by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Special Court under the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 [Sessions Court for Exclusive Trial of Bomb Blast and POTA Cases], Chennai at Poonamallee, the appellants have filed these criminal appeals. 2. When these criminal appeals were taken up for hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants produced a judgment copy of a Division Bench of this court passed in Crl.A. No.287 of 2023 dated 20.12.2023 wherein similarly placed accused, namely A5 in Spl.C.C. No.23 of 2022 in RC No.02/2020/NIA/DLI, was granted bail. In the said case, A5 was in jail for more than four years. 3. The overt acts attributed against the appellant in Crl.A. No.951 of 2024/A8 are that the appellant is a supporter of ISIS/Daish and since July, 2019, he had knowingly attended meetings organised by ISIS/Daish member Khaju Mohideen, who was arraigned as A11 at Bengaluru in support of the proscribed terrorist organisation while providing assistance in organising such meetings. Subsequently, the appellant had knowingly conspired with ISIS/Daish members Khaja Mohideen (A11) and Mahboob Pasha (A12) at Salem, Ambur and Cuddalore in Tamil Nadu besides at Bengaluru while conducting consequent preparations to carry out terrorist attacks in Tamil Nadu and other parts of India, on behalf of the proscribed organisation ISIS/Daish. Pursuant to the conspiracy, the appellant had assisted ISIS/Daish members Khaja Mohideen (A11) and Mahboob Pasha (A12) to communicate over dark web, using Tails operating system and TOR browser besides encrypted applications CTemplar and Pidgin as part of preparations to carry out terrorist attacks on behalf of ISIS/Daish. 4. Similarly, the overt acts attributed against the appellant Hussain Shariff in Crl.A. No.959 of 2024/A10 are that the appellant is a supporter of ISIS/Daish and since November, 2019, he had knowingly attended the meetings organised by ISIS/Daish member Khaju Mohideen, who was arraigned as A11 at Bengaluru in support of the proscribed terrorist organisation while providing assistance in organising such meetings. Subsequently, the appellant had knowingly conspired with ISIS/Daish members Khaja Mohideen (A11) and Mahboob Pasha (A12) while conducting consequent preparations to carry out terrorist attacks in Tamil Nadu and other parts of India, on behalf of the proscribed organisation ISIS/Daish. Subsequently, the appellant had knowingly conspired with ISIS/Daish members Khaja Mohideen (A11) and Mahboob Pasha (A12) while conducting consequent preparations to carry out terrorist attacks in Tamil Nadu and other parts of India, on behalf of the proscribed organisation ISIS/Daish. In December, 2019, the appellant had knowingly harboured Abdul Shameem and Thowfeek, the associates of Kaja Mohideen (A11) in ISIS/Daish from Tamil Nadu, at his home in Bengaluru, before they both had committed the terrorist act of killing Special Sub-Inspector Wilson at Kaliyakkavilai, Kanyakumari District on 8th January, 2020. The appellant, after the arrest of co-accused Haneef Khan (A6) and Imran Khan (A7) in this case, had knowingly destroyed the materials including Tamil books and communication equipment collected by the ISIS/Daish-inspired gang, in pursuance of their conspiracy, to establish wilayah (province) of the proscribed terrorist organisation ISISI/Daish near forests of South India. 5. In the case on hand, charges were framed against the appellants on 12.03.2025, the prosecution has cited 164 witnesses and in such circumstances, the trial is not likely to be completed within a reasonable time and that the appellants are in jail for more than five years, we are inclined to grant bail to the appellants/A8 and A10 in the above terms as that of the co-accused, namely A5 granted by this Hon'ble Court in Crl.A. No.287 of 2023 dated 20.12.2023 . 6. In such view of the matter, both the appeals deserve to be allowed in terms of the judgment in Crl.A. No.287 of 2023 dated 20.12.2023 . Accordingly, both the appeals are allowed and the Orders of the Special court under National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 , Sessions Court for Exclusive Trial for Bomb Blast Cases Chennai at Poonamallee, Chennai dated 08.04.2024 in Crl.M.P. Nos.387 & 388 of 2024 Spl. S.C. No.23/22 in Cr.No.RC. No.02/2020/NIA/DLI are set aside. Accordingly, both the appeals are allowed and the Orders of the Special court under National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 , Sessions Court for Exclusive Trial for Bomb Blast Cases Chennai at Poonamallee, Chennai dated 08.04.2024 in Crl.M.P. Nos.387 & 388 of 2024 Spl. S.C. No.23/22 in Cr.No.RC. No.02/2020/NIA/DLI are set aside. The appellants/A8 & A10, are granted bail on the following conditions: (i) Each of the appellants shall execute a bond and furnish two sureties for a likesum of Rs.50,000/- [Rupees Fifty Thousand only] each, and one of the sureties should be a blood relative to the satisfaction of the learned Judge, Special Court under the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (Sessions Court for Exclusive Trial of Bomb Blast Cases) Chennai at Poonamallee, Chennai - 600 056; (ii) After coming out of jail, the appellants shall stay in Chennai and shall not leave Chennai city without the permission of the trial court; (iii) The appellants shall appear and sign before the trial court every day at 10.30 a.m. until further orders; (iv) The appellants shall surrender their Passport (if any) before the trial court and if they do not hold a passport, they shall file an affidavit to that effect in the form that may be prescribed by the trial court. In the latter case, if the trial has reason to doubt the accuracy of the statement, write to the Passport Officer concerned to verify the statement and the Passport Officer shall verify his record and send a reply within three weeks. In the latter case, if the trial has reason to doubt the accuracy of the statement, write to the Passport Officer concerned to verify the statement and the Passport Officer shall verify his record and send a reply within three weeks. If he fails to reply within the said period, the trial court will be entitled to act on the statement of the appellants; (v)The appellants shall cooperate with the investigation; (vi) The appellants shall not tamper with the evidence and indulge in any other activities which are in the nature of preventing the investigation process; (vii) The appellants shall inform the trial court the address where they reside and if they change their address, the same should be informed to the trial court; (viii) Each of the appellants shall use only one mobile phone during the time they remain on bail and shall inform the trial court their mobile number; (ix) The appellants shall also ensure that their mobile phones remain active and charged at all times so that they remain accessible over phone throughout the period they are on bail; (x)The trial court will be at liberty to cancel bail if any of the above conditions are violated or a case for cancellation of bail is otherwise made out. 7. It is made clear that the Special Court under the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 , namely the Sessions Court for Exclusive Trial of Bomb Blast Cases, Chennai at Poonamallee, shall accept the sureties on the basis of the web copy to be produced by the Advocates/parties.