CHANDRA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is the petitioner in Crl. M.P. No. 360 of 2017 and is arrayed as A-29 in Spl. C.C. 5 of 2003, pending on the file of the Special Court Under the Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA), 2002 [Sessions Court for Exclusive Trial of Bomb Blast Cases], Chennai at Poonamallee, Chennai-56. The appellant filed the above said petition under Section 437 read with 439 Cr.P.C. for her enlargement on bail pending trial of the above said Sessions Case and vide, impugned order dated 23.10.2017, the trial Court has dismissed her bail application and challenging the legality of the same, has filed this appeal.

(2.) Facts leading to the filing of this appeal have been narrated in the impugned order, which is the subject matter of this appeal and therefore, it is unnecessary to restate the facts except to cull out the necessary relevant facts for the disposal of this appeal:

(3.) Mr. R. Sankarasubbu, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/A-29 would submit that except the fact that the appellant happens to be the wife of one of the alleged prime accused, namely Sundaramurthy/A-30, she has nothing to do with the commission of offences and under the guise of interrogation, one Siva @ Partheeban has been shot dead and even in the charge sheet, specific role played by the appellant has not been indicated except the fact that she is a member of banned organization. It is further submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that merely expressing her views in support of an organization would not lead to the conclusion that she is acting against the interest of the State and drawn the attention of this Court to the judgdment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in State of Kerala v. Raneef, AIR 2011 SC 340 : (2011) 1 SCC 784 : LNIND 2011 SC 3 (2011) 3 MLJ (Crl) 761 . It is the further submission of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that admittedly "The Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002" has been repealed by "The Prevention of Terrorism (Repeal) Act, 2004" and therefore, charge under section 3(2)(b) of the said Act cannot be proceeded with and her bail application, in the facts and circumstances, is to be considered strictly in accordance with the first proviso to Section 437 Cr.P.C., 1973 and she being a women, aged about 50 years and would further add that in the event of her enlargement of bail, she will not abscond and fully cooperate for expeditious conclusion of trial and prays for appropriate orders.