Swear allegiance to Constitution, disbelief in Maoist ideology: Madras High Court imposes bail conditions

The Madras High Court recently granted bail to a suspected subscriber of Communist Party of India (Maoist) philosophy on the condition that he files a sworn affidavit stating that he owed allegiance to the Constitution of India and did not believe in Maoist ideology [Suresh Rajan v The State]..A Bench of Justices PN Prakash and AA Nakkiran acceded to the submission of the appellant that he was neither a sympathiser nor a member of the CPI (Maoist) group, and that he had faith in the Indian Constitution.The Bench thus agreed to grant bail on the filing of an affidavit stating the following:“(a) he owes faith and allegiance to the Constitution of India and that he does not believe in the Maoist ideology or the ideology of CPI (M);(b)he does not believe in violence as an ideology; and(c) he would do nothing to subvert the Constitution of India.”.The proceedings arose when one Vivek used the appellant’s SIM card to create a Facebook account, and accessed the account using the third accused’s phone.Through that account, on Independence Day in 2020, he posted on Facebook, “The change of regime that happened in 1947 is a sham because it has not got rid of feudalism, imperialism and exploitation of the poor and therefore, August 15th is a farce independence. In order to gain real independence, let us mobilise in the path of war shown by Naxalbari.”.A criminal case was then registered against him for the offence under Section 505 (statements conducing to public mischief) of the Indian Penal Code and under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. Eventually, the case was transferred to the National Investigation Agency (NIA).The appellant was remanded to judicial custody by the NIA and the agency chose not to arrest the third accused Mohan, as he was physically challenged. Subsequently, the main accused was granted bail..Thereafter, the appellant also sought bail. The NIA filed a detailed counter affidavit objecting to the grant of such bail stating that he was an active member of banned outfit CPI (Maoist), and would continue to involve himself in subversive activities if enlarged on bail..The Bench said that if the appellant continued to subscribe to the CPI (Maoist) philosophy, there was no point in releasing him on bail since the same was a banned organisation under the UAPA.“...it exhorts its members to take to violence for achieving its political agenda. In other words, they believe in the bullet and not in the ballot,” the Court recorded..However, the appellant’s counsel assured the Court that he harboured no such sympathies. Therefore, the Court allowed bail on the condition of a sworn affidavit.It was also made clear that should the appellant adopt any dilatory tactics during trial, it was open to the Special Court to cancel his bail and remand him to custody. The order further stated,“It is further made clear that though bail is granted by this Court...the Special Court can cancel the bail, if the situation so warrants.”.Advocate Sankarasubbu appeared for the appellant, and the respondents were represented by Special Public Prosecutor R Karthikeyan..[Read Order]