The Madras High Court has granted bail to a suspected Maoist on condition that she should file a sworn affidavit in Tamil owing faith and allegiance to the Constitution and that she does not believe in Maoism. The affidavit, containing both her signature and thumb impression, must state that she does not believe in violence as an ideology and that she would do nothing to subvert the Constitution, the court ordered.
A Division Bench of Justices P.N. Prakash and R. Hemalatha also directed Sathya Mary alias ‘Kakarala’ Padma, 48, to execute a bond for ₹25,000 with two sureties for a like sum to the satisfaction of a special court at Poonnamalee near Chennai for exclusive trial of bomb blast cases. The sureties must be her blood relatives and she should appear before the trial court daily, after obtaining bail, until further orders, it said.
The judges also granted liberty to the special court to cancel the bail and remand her in judicial custody if she adopts dilatory tactics during the course of trial. Though the bail had been granted by the High Court, the special court could cancel such bail if the situation warrants and a fresh First Information Report (FIR) could also be registered against her if she absconds once again to evade the trial proceedings, the Bench said.
The Bench pointed out that the woman had actually been booked under the Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA) of 2002, the Arms Act of 1959 and the Indian Penal Code for serious offences such as attempt to murder. The case was booked way back in 2003 and she got enlarged on conditional bail in 2005. In violation of the bail conditions, she absconded in 2009 leading to the cancellation of her bail order in 2017.
Just when she was about to be declared a proclaimed offender, the woman surrendered before the special court on December 7, 2018 and got remanded in judicial custody. Her plea for bail on health grounds was rejected by the special court on August 5, 2021 and hence she had moved the present criminal appeal before the High Court listing out the ailments she was suffering from.
Authoring the verdict, Justice Prakash began saying: “The appellant is accused of being a Maoist, wedded to violence as a means to bring about a political change. Now the question is, if the appellant continues to believe in this ideology, would it be appropriate for this court to release her on bail and allow her to unleash violence on the instrumentalities of the State.”
Further, observing that “the Indian State now rests on the Constitution of India drafted by a committee of noble men headed by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar,” the Bench recorded the submission of her counsel R. Sankarasubbu that the appellant had turned over a new leaf and that was the reason for her surrender in 2018. “We trust the words of Mr. Sankarasubbu and hope that the appellant would abjure all forms of violence,” the judges said.
The Bench went on to state that in cases where people wedded to a certain ideology were involved, they do everything possible to prevent the conduct of the trial and such things remain unknown to the media or the outside world. Even in the present case, though the trial judge had fixed a calendar to complete the trial, the counsel for the appellant withdrew his memo of appearance right on the day when she was to be examined.
“On account of such dilatory tactics adopted by the accused, evidences disappear eventually leading to their acquittal. At that time, there will be a hue and cry saying that the system, without any material thereof, had kept the person in prolonged incarceration. This is the bane of our present-day criminal justice system and we have to grudgingly endure it,” the judges lamented.
Nevertheless, deciding to grant bail to the appellant because of her health condition and her voluntary surrender, the judges observed: “Therefore, we are applying a soothing balm in order to give her an opportunity to re-affirm her allegiance to the Constitution.”
