CHENNAI: Confronted frequently with petitions challenging the orders of the special court at Poonamallee dealing with bomb blast cases and cases filed by the National Investigation Agency (NIA), the Madras High Court, in a recent order, criticised the court for being “insensitive” while dealing with petitions seeking to dispense with appearance of the accused during the trials and those for recalling non-bailable warrants (NBWs).
It further issued orders to the special court on how to deal with such petitions as per settled propositions of law.
A division bench of justices M S Ramesh and N Senthilkumar recently passed the orders on a criminal appeal petition filed by Mohammed Faruk, an accused in an NIA case, praying for setting aside the orders of the special court dismissing his plea filed under 317 of CrPC seeking dispensing with appearance of the accused and Section 70 (2) of CrPC for recalling the NBW issued against him.
Referring to the special court’s rejections of such petitions, the bench remarked that the court has been “consistently demonstrating of being insensitive to all the settled propositions of law”.
On the court rejecting Faruk’s petitions on the ground that he had filed such petitions ten times earlier and was trying to delay the trial, the bench said, “We do not endorse this view of the special court.”
The disregard to these well-settled principles of law and rejecting the petitions for dispensing with appearance and recalling NBWs is “an arbitrary exercise of its powers”, the bench remarked.
It explained that the special court can go ahead with the trial even if the accused person is not present in the court by exercising “discretion” under Section 299 of CrPC and sections 16 (5) of National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, and 29 (5) of Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002.
Faruk is the eleventh accused in the NIA case registered under various sections of IPC including murder and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.
Advocate I Abdul Basith, appearing for him, had submitted that Faruk, who had been granted bail already, was down with diarrhoea on the morning of January 30, 2025, when he was to appear in the special court. His petition seeking to dispense with and recall the NBW was rejected.
The division bench set aside the special court’s orders while directing the appellant Faruk to strictly adhere to the modified bail conditions as ordered by the division bench.