The Madras High Court granted bail to a woman accused of Maoist activities provided on condition that she does not believe in Maoism.
The appellant is an accused before the Special Court for the offences punishable under Sections 148, 333, 307, 333 IPC read with Section 149 IPC, Section 307 IPC read with Section 149 IPC and Section 120-B IPC read with Section 3(2)(b) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002, Section 25(1B)(a) of the Arms Act, 1959 and Sections 3(3), 3(5), 4(b) and 22(1) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002. Though the appellant was enlarged on bail with certain conditions by the Court, the appellant absconded in 2009 and ultimately, her bail was cancelled by an order, followed by initiation of action under Sections 446-A and 82 Cr.P.C. The sureties were discharged after payment of penalty and when the proclamation proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. were pending, the appellant surrendered before the Special Court and was remanded in judicial custody.
Advocate Sankarasubbu, appearing for the appellant contended that the appellant is sick and bedridden and is unable to do her daily routine without the help of others. He argued that the appellant has been in judicial custody since 2018 and therefore, prayed for enlarging her on bail.
R.Muniyapparaj, Additional Public Prosecutor contended that the appellant went underground from the year 2009, though she was granted bail by the Court. He further argued that despite prolonged efforts, she could not be secured and only after the proclamation proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C., the appellant surrendered. He therefore prayed for dismissal of the present appeal.
The division bench of Justice P. N. Prakash and Justice R. Hemalatha said that they are inclined to grant bail to the appellant because of her health condition as well taking into consideration the fact that she had voluntarily surrendered in the year 2018 and has been in incarceration for over three years since then.
The court ordered the appellant to file a sworn affidavit in Tamil affixing her signature and thumb impression before the trial Judge stating: that she owes faith and allegiance to the Constitution of India and that she does not believe in Maoism; that she does not believe in violence as an ideology; and that she would do nothing to subvert the Constitution of India.
The court said that on the appellant filing such an affidavit before the Special Court, the appellant shall be enlarged on bail on her satisfying the conditions.
Case title: Sathya Mary @ Padma v/s State
Citation: Crl.A.No.417 of 2021