Bail denied to accused Vijith Vijayan, an alleged Maoist leader in UAPA Case: High Court of Kerala
The High Court of Kerala, through learned judges Justice K. Vinodchandran & Justice C. Jayachandran, in the case Vijith Vijayan vs Union of India (CRL.A NO. 127 OF 2022), denied bail to accused Vijith Vijayan, an alleged Maoist leader.
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE: The appellant is Vijith Vijayan, a fourth accused in a UAPA case, charged under Section 120B of IPC and Sections 13, 38 & 39 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1957. Two other co-accused in the same case were granted bail. However, the Special Court for the trial of NIA cases (Ernakulam),rejected the appellant’s bail application, following which the petitioner approached the High Court for bail. In the court proceedings, the learned counsel for the appellant argued that there was absolutely no incriminating evidence connecting the appellant to the crime alleged or the allegations raised. Further reliance was placed on Shreya Singhal v. Union of India [(2015) 5 SCC to contend that mere participation in discussion and deliberation cannot attract the offences under the UAPA. The learned counsel of the State alleged that the appellant is a member of the semi-underground cadre of the CPI(Maoist), entrusted with the task of operating and propagating the ideology in the urban areas. In support of this statement, documents and digital devices seized from the appellant’s residence were submitted as incriminating evidence to the court. The handwriting expert also testified that the handwriting of the accused matched the handwriting of the digital scripts.
JUDGEMENT: Relying on the judgement of the court in the case of Thwaha Fasal and Another v. Union of India (2021 (6) KHC 228 (SC)), the court held that the allegations against the other two co-accused and the petitioner differ considerably. Taking the charge sheet into consideration, the association of the petitioner with a terrorist organization CPI (Maoist), was prima facie established. Whereas on the other hand, in the case of the other two co-accused who were granted bail, there were neither overt acts alleged nor a reasonable inference possible from the materials available of an intention on their part to further the activities or terrorist acts of the proscribed organization, The court dismissed the petition by upholding the decision of the learned judge of the Special Court with respect to rejection of the petitioner’s application.
JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY – AMRUTHA K