"UAPA invoked only to deny bail": Madras High Court grants bails to Muslim youth booked on suspicion of conspiring to kill Hindu man

The Madras High Court on Friday granted bail to a Muslim man booked under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) on suspicion of hatching a conspiracy to kill a Hindu man who had objected to the conversion of his son to Islam [Sadam Hussain vs State represented by the Inspector of Police]..A bench of Justices S Vaidyanathan and AD Jagadish Chandira said that there wasn't any complaint filed by anyone against the appellant and that no one was even injured in the case and that UAPA was invoked only to deny bail to the accused.The Court also held that allegations that the appellant Sadam Hussain wanted to eliminate one Kumaresan because he opposed converting his son to Islam, would fall short of amounting to a 'terrorist act' under UAPA."Therefore, in the opinion of this court, the provisions of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act have been included only in order to deny/delay the appellant from getting bail from the court. Further, considering the facts of the case, this court is of the opinion that the allegations against the appellant do not fall within the definition of 'Terrorist Act' and there are no reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against the appellant is prima facie true," the Court held in the order passed on August 26..As per the prosecution case, the appellant was found in suspicious circumstances and was picked up by a constable on March 7, 2022. Upon enquiry, the he allegedly told the cops that he was a member of the Indian Muslim Development Association (IMDA) which works for the Mulsim community. He also allegedly confessed that he was 'deployed' there by the President of IMDA, along with three other co-accused. He allegedly also confessed that the IMDA chief had asked him to signal him whenever one Kumaresan would come so that he along with the other two men could join the appellant to kill Kumaresan..The police claimed that Kumaresan's son had married a Muslim girl and her parents wanted the boy to convert into Islam. However, Kumaresan had vehemently opposed the proposal and thus the girl's parents allegedly asked the appellant and the IMDA chief to kill Kumaresan.The motive of this conspiracy, the police claimed, was to eliminate Kumaresan and get his son converted to Islam and also to send a strong message to people from Hindu community not to marry Muslim people and convert them to Hinduism. .The judges, however, said that the contention regarding the motive was contradictory.The Court noted that the motive attributed to the accused by the prosecution has got two limbs. First, the removal of the hindrance in convert one Arunkumar, who had married a Muslim girl from Hinduism to Islam and the second, to threaten people from other communities not to enter into confrontation with Islam.The bench reasoned that if the accused actually wanted to kill Kumaresan so that he is not an obstacle in conversion of his son to Islam, then the modus operandi would have been to kill him by maintaining secrecy of the plan. However, if they wanted to create fear and terror among the people of other beliefs, then their plan would have been to kill Kumaresan openly. "A logical analysis would reveal that both the limbs of motive travel vice versa and they cannot be meeting at any point," the Court said..The judges further noted that the police had initially registered an offence under section 153 (A) (attempting to create communal tension) and 120 B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Criminal Law Amendment (CLA) Act and later invoked provisions of the Arms Act and UAPA.It also noted that the State police had referred this case to the National Investigation Agency (NIA) but the central agency refused to take it up.The Court also noted the following as regards the merits of the allegations against the accused:"From the perusal of the case diary and the materials available, other than the appellants and the other accused having been arrested based on suspicion and their confession being recorded while in custody and recovery of Bill Hooks from the other accused, there is no other material to pin point that the appellant and other accused had intended to commit the murder of Kumaresan and to create terror and fear among the public and people of other section."In view of the above, the bench granted bail to the appellant on a surety of ₹25,000. He was directed not to commit any offence while on bail or abscond or tamper with evidence. He was also ordered to furnish his phone number, passport and residential details to the police..Advocate SMA Jinnah appeared for the Appellant.Additional Public Prosecutor Babu Muthumeeran represented the State.Special Public Prosecutor R Karthikeyan appeared for the NIA..[Read Order]