LAWS(MAD)-2004-4-128

PARANTHAMAN S O KASI VISWANATHAN Vs. STATE

Decided On April 05, 2004
PARANTHAMAN Appellant
V/S
STATE REPRESENTED BY ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order of the Special Court under the Prevention of Terrorism Act, Poonmallee, Chennai dated 6-2-2004 made in Crl.M.P.No. 114 of 2003 in and by which the learned Special Judge rejected the application for bail.

(2.) The appellant has been charged for alleged offences under Section 21(3) punishable under Section 21 (4) of Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as "POTA"), Section 4(b)(1 ) and 5 (a) of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and Section 17 (1) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1908. The Abhiramapuram Police Station has registered the First Information Report on 6-9-2002 for the aforesaid offences.

(3.) The brief facts which are required for the disposal of the above appeal are stated hereunder: Tamilar Desiya Iyakkam was declared as an unlawful Association by a notification dated 13-8-2002 under the provisions of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1908. By a notification dated 23-8-2002, the premises at New No.33, Narasimhapuram, Mylapore, Chennai-4 was declared as the premises used by the said Association. On 25-8-2002 the said premises was selaed. In an interview to the Satellite Television Channels the appellant is alleged to have stated that there is no war in Sri Lanka and that there was no need for any cooperation from this end, more so since the Srilankan Government was thinking of lifting the ban on LTTE. The appellant is alleged to have stated that if it is a sin to praise the brave struggle of the Tamils, they would continue to commit the same. The appellant had not spoken in support of any terrorist organization nor had he invited support for a terrorist organization. A reference to the brave struggle of the Tamils in Sri Lanka cannot constitute support to any terrorist organization. No offence under the provisions of POTA, 2002 has been made out or committed. Realizing that the speech would not attract the provisions of POTA, some gelatine sticks and electric detonators were planted in the poultry farm of the appellant and a seizure was allegedly made on 6-11 -2002 long after his arrest on 18-9-2002. The appellant is innocent and has not committed any of the offences as alleged. On earlier occasions, the appellant had filed bail applications. As they were rejected, he filed appeals. In view of the recent judgement of the Supreme Court in PUCL v. Union of India, reported in 2004 (1) CTC 241, holding that after one year of detention, the application for bail would be considered under the normal criminal law as found in the Code of Criminal Procedure, the appellant withdrew the earlier appeal and filed a fresh bail application in Crl.M.P.No. 114 of 2003 before the Special Court. The said application was dismissed by an order dated 6-2 -2004 against which the present appeal has been filed.