Delay in starting trial alone not ground for bail: HC

A division bench comprising Justice R Subbiah and Justice R Pongiappan dismissed the appeal moved by the accused S Nijam Ali alias Nijam and six others on Friday after holding that the court was of the view that the delay in commencing the trial would not affect the constitutional right of the accused to get bail on the ground of delay.

According to the prosecution, Nijam and the other accused were deputed by Popular Front of India (PFI) to do ‘Dawah work’ (converting members of other religions to Islam) in Theni. While they were engaged in the work at a village in Thiruvidaimarudur on February 5, 2019, V Ramalingam, a PMK member, raised objections against their reported attempts to convert Hindus.

During the altercation, Ramalingam allegedly removed ‘Taqiyah’ (religious skull cap) worn by one of the accused and wore it on himself. Besides, he also applied thiruneer (holy ash) on his forehead to emphasise that all religions were same. Later that day, when Ramalingam and his son were returning home at Tirubhuvanam in their mini lorry, the accused allegedly intercepted them and hacked Ramalingam to death.

But the counsel representing the accused contended that as per the allegations it was only an ordinary murder and there was no prima-facie case made out as against the accused to implicate them under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. He added that there was no material to connect them under Section 120-B of the IPC.

The prosecution countered that there were 15 hide-out witnesses who spoke about the conspiracy, and added that the overt acts of the accused were yet to be examined. Hence, if released on bail, there was every likelihood of tampering with the witnesses. They would also threaten the witnesses, the counsel added.

Conceding to the prosecutor’s submission, the bench said, “We are also not oblivious of the fact that bail is a rule and jail is an exception as has been propounded by the Supreme Court in a catena of decisions. But, in the given nature of this case in respect of the crime alleged against the appellants, it is just and proper that the witnesses of the prosecution have to be permitted to testify before the trial court and thereafter, it will be open for the appellants/accused to seek for bail.”

The bench then directed the trial court to examine the hide-out witnesses and record their evidence on or before June 30.