Kerala High Court Grants Bail to Alleged LTTE Operative Accused of Drug Trafficking and Arms Smuggling to Fund Terror and Wage War Against Sri Lanka After Four Years in NIA Custody
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Kerala Division Bench of Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice P.V. Balakrishnan on Tuesday granted bail to an alleged Sri Lankan LTTE operative accused of conspiring to revive the banned organization and wage war against Sri Lanka through drug trafficking and arms smuggling. The Court allowed the criminal appeal, setting aside the Special Court's earlier order rejecting bail, on the grounds that the accused had undergone over four years of incarceration with the trial unlikely to commence until January 2027, thereby violating his constitutional right to a speedy trial under Article 21.
The appeal was filed under Section 21 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 challenging the rejection of bail by the Special Court for trial of NIA Cases, Ernakulam. The appellant, arrayed as the ninth accused, was charged with offences under Sections 120B and 125 of the IPC; Sections 18, 20, 38, 39 and 40 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act; Sections 7 and 25(1AA) of the Arms Act, 1959; and various provisions of the NDPS Act.
According to the prosecution, the appellant, a Sri Lankan citizen residing in Chennai as a refugee, was an armed cadre of the LTTE and allegedly conspired with other accused to revive the organisation. It was alleged that the group engaged in trafficking 300.323 kilograms of heroin and procuring prohibited arms and ammunition to raise funds for terrorist activities. Funds were allegedly routed through hawala and converted into properties.
The appellant contended that there was no prima facie material against him and that he had been in custody since 05.10.2021. He also pointed to the large number of witnesses and documents, arguing that the trial would not conclude in the near future. The prosecution opposed bail citing gravity of offences, prior conviction, and statutory embargo under Section 43-D(5) and 43-D(7) of the UA(P) Act.
The Court recorded that “it is an admitted fact that the appellant is in custody from 05.10.2021 onwards.” It further noted from the trial court report that “SC 4/2021 is not ripe for trial and there is no possibility of commencing the trial in near future.” The report indicated that “the trial can probably commence in January 2027 and if so commenced, can be completed only by December 2027.”
Referring to precedent, the Court extracted the holding in Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb, recording: “the presence of statutory restrictions like S.43-D(5) of UAPA per–se does not oust the ability of Constitutional Courts to grant bail on grounds of violation of Part III of the Constitution.” It further quoted that “the rigours of such provisions will melt down where there is no likelihood of trial being completed within a reasonable time and the period of incarceration already undergone has exceeded a substantial part of the prescribed sentence.”
From Shoma Kanti Sen v. State of Maharashtra, the Court reproduced: “any form of deprival of liberty results in breach of Art.21 of the Constitution of India and must be justified on the ground of being reasonable, following a just and fair procedure and such deprival must be proportionate in the facts of a given case.”
Citing Athar Parwez v. Union of India, the Court noted: “with the passage of time the effect of that statutory provision would in fact have to be diluted giving way to the mandate of Part III of the Constitution.”
The Bench stated, “considering the fact that the appellant herein is undergoing incarceration for a period of more than four years and four months and also the report received from the trial court, which shows that the trial is not likely to commence and end in near future, we are of the considered view that this is a fit case where the appellant can be granted the relief as sought for by him.”
Addressing the argument under Section 43-D(7), the Court observed that “the right to speedy trial enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution is applicable to all persons and is not restricted to citizens of this country.” It added that “the constitutional right of speedy trial will have precedence over the strict provisions such as Sections 43-D(5) and also 43-D(7) of the UA(P) Act.”
The Court ordered that “Criminal Appeal No.1731/2024 is allowed as follows: The appellant/9th accused shall be released on bail on executing a bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) with two solvent sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the Special Court for the trial of NIA cases, Ernakulam. It shall be open to the Special Court to impose such additional conditions as it may deem fit and necessary in the interest of justice.”
The Bench specified that the conditions shall mandatorily include that “If the appellant/9th accused intend to leave State of Kerala, he shall obtain prior permission from the Special Court. If the appellant/9th accused is in possession of any passport, he shall surrender the same before the Special Court, forthwith. The appellant/9th accused shall furnish to the Investigating Officer of the NIA his complete and current residential address, including any changes thereto, and shall ensure that the same remains updated at all times.”
“The appellant/9th accused shall use only one mobile number during the period of bail and shall communicate the said number to the Investigating Officer of the NIA. He shall remain accessible on the said number throughout the duration of bail and shall not, under any circumstances, switch off or discard the device associated with it without prior intimation. The appellant/9th accused shall report before the Station House Officer of the Police Station having jurisdiction over his place of residence on every first and third Saturdays, without fail. The appellant/9th accused shall not tamper with evidence or attempt to influence or threaten any witnesses in any manner. The appellant/9th accused shall not engage in or associate with any activity that is similar to the offence alleged against him or commit any offence while on bail.”
“In the event of any breach of the aforesaid conditions or of any other condition that may be imposed by the Special Court in addition to the above, it shall be open to the prosecution to move for cancellation of the bail granted to the appellant/9th accused before the Special Court, notwithstanding the fact that the bail was granted by this Court. Upon such application being made, the Special Court shall consider the same on its own merits and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Adv. Cimil Cherian Kottalil, Adv. B. Vinod
For the Respondents: Shri T.C. Krishna, Senior Panel Counsel; O.M. Shalina, Deputy Solicitor General of India
Case Title: Satkunam @ Sabesan v. Union of India
Neutral Citation: 2026: KER:15120
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 1731 of 2024
Bench: Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice P.V. Balakrishnan
