THE Supreme Court Friday issued notice to the National Investigation Agency (NIA) on an appeal filed by Kerala youth Thwaha Fasal challenging a high court order cancelling his bail under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) case for alleged Maoist links.
A bench of Justices Navin Sinha and Ajay Rastogi said that the matter required a hearing and called for a counter-affidavit from the NIA.
It added both the decision of the NIA court granting bail to Fasal and the high court’s order cancelling his bail were reasoned orders, and thus, the matter deserved to be heard by the top court.
It listed the matter after three weeks.
Senior advocate V Giri appeared for Fasal.
The Kerala High Court on January 4 while cancelling Fasal’s bail said when individual rights are pitted against national interest and security, the latter should prevail.
Also Read: Kerala HC cancels bail granted by NIA court to UAPA accused; says individual rights should subserve the national interest
It added it did not approve the firm view of the Special Judge, NIA that bail is the rule and jail, an exception.
“Even though that is the general perception in ordinary crimes, when the accused faces allegation under a special enactment, his right to be enlarged on bail shall be governed by the provisions of the special statute”, the High Court said.
The NIA court in Kochi last year granted bail to two students, who were arrested for alleged Maoist links and were facing charges under UAPA.
Shuhaib, a law student, and Fasal, a journalism student, both members of the ruling CPI(M), were arrested from Kozhikode by the local police and charged under Sections 38 and 39 of UAPA and Section 120B of IPC.
While granting bail, the NIA court said there was no allegation by the prosecution that the accused conspired to commit any specific terrorist act.
High Court though cancelled the bail granted to Fasal, refused to cancel the bail granted to another accused, Allan Shuhaib.
In not canceling Shuhaib’s bail, the High Court noted that there were numerous mitigating circumstances in his favour. Firstly, on the date when the crime was detected, he was only 20 years old. Secondly, referring to copies of prescriptions produced along with the bail application, the Special Judge had noted that he had some psychiatric issues for which treatment was underway. Thirdly, the materials that were seized from him and placed before the court were less serious compared to the materials seized from Fasal’s possession, the high court said.
