The dilemma of “bail and not jail” resurfaced again in the Supreme Court in the case of granting bail to Najeeb, the accused in a case of chopping the hand off of a professor in the state of Kerala.
Facts
While framing a question paper for second semester B.Com students at Newman College, Thodupuzha, Kerala little did Prof TJ Joseph realise it would cost him his hand. The said question was considered to be offensive to a certain religion by certain members of the society, so Najeeb KA along with his accomplices chopped off the professor’s hand using knives, axe and choppers on 4th July 2010. The accused in the case belonged to a political party known as Popular Front of India (PFI).
Najeeb was arrested on 10th April 2015 and a charge sheet was filed by the National Investigation Agency. Further investigation proved the incident was not an isolated one, rather it was a part of a larger conspiracy involving a lot of planning, numerous operations and using a lot of dangerous weapons.
Analysis
It is pertinent to understand why the High Court of Kerala granted the accused bail. The High Court relied on Article 21 of the Indian Constitution while granting the bail. The fact that the accused had spent a lot of time in jail and also considering the fact that the trail would not get over any time in the near future the Court decided to grant the bail.
The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the High Court on the grounds that the latest charge sheet had been filed only on 27th November 2020 and the fact that the accused had spent around 5 years in jail. There was still more than 200 witnesses to be examined and if the charges were proved the punishment was serving 8 years. The Supreme Court held that
“Given that two-third of such incarceration is already complete, it appears that the respondent has already paid heavily for his acts of fleeing from justice.”
The Court also held that the provisions of Section 43-D(5) of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) under which Najeeb was arrested could not override Constitutional Provisions.
Supreme Court Decision
The Supreme Court bench comprising of Justices NV Ramana, Surya Kant and Anirudhha Bose refused to interfere with the Kerala High Court’s decision of granting him bail. However, conditions were imposed.
The accused was asked to mark his attendance at the local police station every Monday by 10 AM and inform that he was not involved in another crime. The accused was also asked to stay away from any activities that could incite his communal sentiments thereby causing violence.
The Supreme Court also stated,
“In case the respondent is found to have violated any of his bail conditions or attempted to have tampered the evidence, influence witnesses, or hamper the trial in any other way, then the Special Court shall be at liberty to cancel his bail forthwith.”
Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgement from the court. Follow us on Google News, Instagram, LinkedIn, Facebook & Twitter. You can also contribute blog, articles, story tip, judgment and many more and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.
