SHAHUL HAMMEED Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The accused is facing a prosecution for the commission of offences under Section 21(2) and (3) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002 (in short 'POTA'), apart from Section 10 of the Unlawful Activities ( Prevention) Act, 1967. The allegation against him is that he has arranged for a meeting on 13.4.2002, where inflammatory speeches were given by the speakers, suggesting their support and inviting the support of the public to a banned organisation called Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE). The offence having taken place in 2002, the other accused persons later on came to be arrested. However, this accused came to be arrested only on 11.3.2003, as according to the accused he surrendered before the Deputy Superintendent of Police, 'Q' Branch.

(2.) It is now a settled position that if the accused, who face the prosecution for the offences under POTA are behind the bars for one year, after one year the question of their bail application would be considered in the light of ordinary law and not in the line of Section 49(6) of POTA. The Supreme Court has already held and confirmed the judgment by this Court in "NEDUMARAN P. AND FIVE OTHERS -VS- STATE" reported in 2004(1) C.T.C.721, granting bail to the other co-accused in this case, who were charged with making the inflammatory speeches. Therefore, there will be no question to take any different view than in case of those persons. The maximum punishment that could be ordered against the accused is also not exceeding ten years. In view of the bail already having been granted to the co-accused on the basis of the Supreme Court judgment, we think it fit to grant bail to the present accused also.

(3.) However, learned Public Prosecutor points out that the trial is already in progress and that though this accused was required by the police, he was apprehended an year after the said meeting took place.