Criminal Appeal Nos. 963, 995, 1027 and 1035 of 2023 — Muhammed Sadik (Accused No.17) v Union of India; Muhammed Shajid K (Accused No.42) v Union of India; Aboobacker Sidik P.K. (Accused No.57) v Union of India; Rishil A.G. (Accused No.32) v Union of India
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court of Kerala
- Hon'ble Judges
- P. B. Suresh Kumar
- C. S. Sudha Friday
- Judgment Date
- 2023-07-14
- Court Decision / Holding
- The appeals are allowed. The four appellants are directed to be released on bail on furnishing bonds of ₹1,00,000 each with two solvent sureties for the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Special Court for Trial of NIA Cases, Ernakulam, subject to conditions: (i) affidavits declaring release at their own risk; (ii) reporting to the Chief Ministerial Officer on Saturdays; (iii) no influencing or tampering with witnesses; (iv) confinement within Ernakulam District until further orders; (v) no contact with the other accused; (vi) no commission of offences while on bail; (vii) surrender of passports. Interlocutory applications, if any, pending, shall stand closed.
- Final Disposition
- Bail Granted
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- Muhammed Sadik (Accused No.17)
- Muhammed Shajid K (Accused No.42)
- Aboobacker Sidik P.K. (Accused No.57)
- Rishil A.G. (Accused No.32)
Respondents
- Union of India represented by National Investigation Agency, Kochi, through Special Public Prosecutor for NIA Cases
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • Thomas Abraham (NIlackappillil)
- • Arun Tom Philip
- • Nireesh Mathew
- • C. Y. Vinod Kumar
- • Satheesh V. T.
Counsels for Respondents
- • Sastheamangal S. Ajithkumar, Special Public Prosecutor for NIA
Case Synopsis & Summary
These batch criminal appeals arise from orders of the Special Court for the Trial of NIA Cases, Ernakulam, rejecting bail applications filed by four accused after they were pardoned under Section 307 Cr.P.C. The appellants—Muhammed Sadik (Accused No.17), Muhammed Shajid K (Accused No.42), Aboobacker Sidik P.K. (Accused No.57), and Rishil A.G. (Accused No.32)—had already been pardoned and sought bail in S.C.No.2/2023. The Special Public Prosecutor for the NIA indicated that, relying on the dictum in Shammi Firoz v. NIA, the NIA does not oppose their bail and that bail may be granted. The High Court, noting the pardon and the relevant authority, allowed the appeals and directed the four appellants to be released on bail on furnishing bonds of ₹1,00,000 each with two solvent sureties of like amount, to the satisfaction of the Special Court. Conditions attached include filing affidavits acknowledging release at their own risk, weekly reporting on Saturdays, non-interference with witnesses, staying within Ernakulam district, no contact with other accused, no further offences, and surrender of passports. The order closes any pending interlocutory applications. The judgment is delivered by a Division Bench, emphasizing leniency grounded in the Pardoning under Sec. 307 Cr.P.C and supportive authority from Shammi Firoz.
Provisions of Law Cited
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
The appellants contend that after pardoning under Section 307 Cr.P.C., they are entitled to bail in light of the settled practice and the NIA does not oppose bail per Shammi Firoz. They seek bail with bond of ₹1,00,000 each, with two solvent sureties, and subject to conditions ensuring compliance, non-interference with witnesses, absence of contact with co-accused, and other reasonable safeguards to ensure trial integrity.
Contentions of Respondents
The NIA, through its Special Public Prosecutor, concedes the bail may be granted in light of Shammi Firoz and submits that bail can be granted subject to conditions necessary for the proper conduct of the trial and to prevent interference or evidence tampering.
Cited Precedents (1)
| Case Name | Citation | Treatment | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Shammi Firoz v. National Investigation Agency | 2010 (4) KHC 319 | Positive | Cited as the guiding authority; the court relies on its dictum to permit bail in similar circumstances. |
Diagnostic Tool
Does this judgment govern your specific facts?
Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Criminal Appeal Nos. 963, 995, 1027 and 1035 of 2023 — Muhammed Sadik (Accused No.17) v Union of India; Muhammed Shajid K (Accused No.42) v Union of India; Aboobacker Sidik P.K. (Accused No.57) v Union of India; Rishil A.G. (Accused No.32) v Union of India and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.
Extracted Judgment Text
Exact text extracted from official judgment records.