{"id":243202,"date":"2021-02-01T22:40:38","date_gmt":"2021-02-01T17:10:38","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=243202"},"modified":"2021-02-05T12:17:19","modified_gmt":"2021-02-05T06:47:19","slug":"najeeb-ka-accused-of-chopping-off-kerala-professors-palm-over-objectionable-question-gets-bail-read-why-supreme-court-upheld-bail-despite-finding-charges-against-him-a-serious-threat-to-soc","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/02\/01\/najeeb-ka-accused-of-chopping-off-kerala-professors-palm-over-objectionable-question-gets-bail-read-why-supreme-court-upheld-bail-despite-finding-charges-against-him-a-serious-threat-to-soc\/","title":{"rendered":"Najeeb KA, accused of chopping off Kerala professor’s palm over “objectionable” question, gets bail. Read why Supreme Court upheld bail despite finding charges against him “a serious threat to societal harmony”"},"content":{"rendered":"

Supreme Court<\/strong>: The 3-judge bench of NV Ramana, Surya Kant*<\/strong> and Anirudhha Bose, JJ \u00a0has refused to interfere with the bail granted by Kerala High Court to KA Najeeb arrested under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 but has imposed the condition that Najeeb shall mark his presence every week on Monday at 10AM at the local police station and inform in writing that he is not involved in any other new crime. He shall also refrain from participating in any activity which might enrage communal sentiments.<\/p>\n

\n

\u201cIn case the respondent is found to have violated any of his bail conditions or attempted to have tampered the evidence, influence witnesses, or hamper the trial in any other way, then the Special Court shall be at liberty to cancel his bail forthwith.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Why was Najeeb arrested?<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n

One Professor TJ Joseph while framing the Malayalam question paper for the second semester B.Com. examination at the Newman College, Thodupuzha, had included a question which was considered objectionable against a particular religion by certain sections of society.<\/p>\n

On\u00a004.07.2010, Najeeb along with some other members of Popular\u00a0Front\u00a0of\u00a0India (PFI) had chopped\u00acoff the professor\u2019s right palm with choppers, knives, and a small axe. Country-made bombs were also hurled at bystanders to create panic and terror in their minds and to prevent them from coming to the aid of the victim. As per records, over the course of investigation it emerged that the attack was part of a larger conspiracy involving meticulous pre-planning, numerous failed attempts and use of dangerous weapons.<\/p>\n

Najeeb was arrested on 10.04.2015 and a chargesheet was re-filed by the National Investigation Agency against him, pursuant to which he is now facing trial.<\/p>\n

Analysis<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n

When can bail be cancelled? <\/strong><\/span><\/h4>\n

At the outset, the Court clarified that there is a vivid distinction between the parameters to be applied while considering a bail application, vis-\u00e0-vis those applicable while deciding a petition for its cancellation.<\/p>\n

\n

\u201cBail once granted by the trial Court, could\u00a0\u00a0 be\u00a0\u00a0 cancelled\u00a0\u00a0 by\u00a0\u00a0 the\u00a0\u00a0 same\u00a0\u00a0 Court\u00a0\u00a0 only\u00a0\u00a0 in\u00a0\u00a0 case\u00a0\u00a0 of\u00a0\u00a0 new circumstances\/evidence, failing which, it would be necessary to approach the Higher Court exercising appellate jurisdiction.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Why did the High Court grant bail? <\/strong><\/span><\/h4>\n

The High Court in the instant case had not determined the likelihood of the respondent being guilty or not, or whether rigours of Section 43-D(5) of UAPA are alien to him. It instead had exercised its power to grant bail owing to the long period of incarceration and the unlikelihood of the trial being completed anytime in the near future. The reasons assigned by the High Court are traceable back to Article 21 of our Constitution, of course without addressing the statutory embargo created by Section 43-D (5) of UAPA.<\/p>\n

\n

\u201c\u2026 gross delay in disposal of such cases would justify the invocation of Article 21 of the Constitution and consequential necessity to release the undertrial on bail.[1]<\/a>\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Consideration by the Supreme Court<\/strong><\/span><\/h4>\n