S. RAGINI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal under Section 34 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002 (in short 'POTA'), against the order dated 29.10.2013 in Crl.M.P.No.216 of 2013 in Spl.C.C.No.1 of 2009, passed by the Special Court for POTA Cases, Poonamallee, Chennai, whereby bail was denied to the appellant / accused herein.

(2.) It is the specific case of the appellant that she is one S.Ragini, wife of Duraisingavelu and not Bharathi, who has been arrayed as Accused No.32 in Spl.C.C.No.1 of 2009 (originally Spl.C.C.No.5 of 2003 and later, split up as against Bharathi, who was absconding and was re-numbered as Spl.C.C.No.1 of 2009).

(3.) Mr.R.Sankarasubbu, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, would contend that the husband of the appellant, Duraisingavelu, was earlier arrested by the police under POTA and he along with other accused were granted bail by this Court on various dates and therefore, continued incarceration of this appellant is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel also submitted that the case of the appellant will not come under Section 3(1)(b) of the POTA, because membership simpliciter without anything more, cannot attract the penal provision under the Act, in the light of the fundamental rights to form an association guaranteed by the Constitution of India. He also placed on the lines, several judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in support of his contention.