IBRAHIM @ BABU Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal is against an order, refusing bail to the 8th accused in S.C.No. 3/2016/NIA. The offence alleged is under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. The learned Judge has looked at the precedents and has found that going by the teeth of the rigour of Section 43D(5) of the UAPA Act, the applicant cannot be granted bail, since the allegations against him are prima facie true. In fact, the allegation against the 8th accused was that he supplied arms to the group, who are propounding Maoist ideology. The said group had also trespassed into the house of a Police Officer, trained a gun at him and threatened him with death, if he does not resign his job and stop helping the Police in Anti-Maoist operations. The assailant group had also set ablaze the motor cycle of the said Police Officer, hurled pamphlets inside his house and pasted posters on the front wall of the house, calling for an armed revolution against the Government of India.

(2.) Even according to the learned Judge, the evidence against the 8th accused is that of the approver. The learned counsel for the appellant specifically points out page 86 of the paper book, which is the approver's statement under Section 164. According to the approver, A7 and A8 were residing together and they were seen together at many places. It is also submitted that they shared the same ideology. As far as the specific allegation pointed by the learned counsel for the appellant, it was that when the approver was with A7 and A8, A7 made some statements about an intended action and there were 4 bags with A7, which from the weight and the shape of the objects inside it, appeared to be arms. But, for the fact that A8 shared the same ideology as A7 and was living along with him and that he was aware of the planning, which led to the said incident; prima facie, there is nothing to show his active involvement.

(3.) One other circumstance is the medical condition of the appellant, which is stated to be very critical. The appellant had also suffered one Cardiac Arrest, while he was in confinement. The appellant is aged 67 years old and is also suffering from multiple ailments. The learned ASG also submits that the trial is going on and there should be no hindrance to the day to day examination of the witnesses.