After being in custody for over four years without charges being framed against them, the Supreme Court has granted bail to two accused individuals in the 2018 murder case of two Telugu Desam Party leaders allegedly by CPI (Maoist). The court found that there were no reasonable grounds to believe the accusations against the appellants were prima facie true under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), and therefore, the bar against granting bail under Section 43D(5) of the act was not applicable.
In its ruling, the bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Rajesh Bindal pointed out that the prosecution intended to examine over 140 witnesses, some of the accused were absconding, and there was no likelihood of the trial commencing anytime soon. The incident occurred on September 23, 2018, in the Dumbriguda Police Station jurisdiction in Visakhapatnam, where Kidari Sarveswara Rao, a member of the Legislative Assembly, and Siveri Soma, a former MLA, were killed. An FIR was lodged against 45 individuals allegedly belonging to the terrorist organization, CPI (Maoist), which was later transferred to the National Investigation Agency (NIA). The two appellants, who were accused no. 46 and 47, respectively, were arrested on October 13, 2018, and a chargesheet was filed against them on April 10, 2019.
The Supreme Court has observed that accused no. 84 was granted bail by the High Court after being found prima facie not involved in the offence. The court also found it puzzling how the purchase of medicines worth Rs. 8,000 by accused no. 46 at the behest of accused no. 84 before the September 23, 2018 incident could be linked to it. The court also noted that accused no. 84 had already been granted bail by the High Court.
Regarding the disclosure statement dated January 16, 2019, the Court emphasized that for Section 27 to apply, the information provided by the accused must lead to the discovery of a fact that is a direct outcome of such information.
The Supreme Court has expressed its doubts about the genuineness of the confessional statements made by the appellants, stating that they were given immediately after the police apprehended them, even before their arrest was recorded. The Court further noted that there is no evidence to suggest that the appellants were present at the time of the commission of the offence under the UAPA.
The Court also examined the Discovery Memo dated January 16, 2019, and found that it did not result in the discovery of any fact as a direct outcome of the information provided by accused no. 46. As a result, the Court opined that the statements made by the appellants in this regard may not be admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.
The Court further held that there are no reasonable grounds for believing that the accusations against the appellants of committing the offence under the UAPA are prima facie true, based on the materials placed on record. Therefore, the bar on granting bail under the proviso to subsection (5) of Section 43D of the UAPA does not apply in this case.
Consequently, the Court directed the Special Judge, NIA, to release the appellants on bail within a week on appropriate conditions, after hearing both the appellants and the respondent.
Click Here to: Download/View Related File
TAGS: Supreme Court bail Maoist UAPA custody murder case Telugu Desam Party charges materials reasonable grounds Section 43D(5) division bench examination of witnesses trial NIA chargesheet disclosure statement Discovery Memo confessional statements police arrest admissible Evidence Act accused commission of offence proviso Special Judge appropriate conditions appellants respondent.
