Madras HC while Granting Bail to a Muslim Man booked on the Suspicion of Conspiracy to Kill a Hindu Man said that UAPA was Invoked only to Deny Bail

Case: Sadam Hussain vs State represented by the Inspector of Police

Bench: Justices S Vaidyanathan and AD Jagadish Chandira 

Unlawful Activities Prevention Act - UAPA

The Madras High Court recently granted bail to a Muslim man booked under the UAPA on suspicion of conspiracy to kill a Hindu man who objected to his son's conversion to Islam. The bench said that no complaint had been filed against the appellant, no injuries had occurred, and that UAPA was invoked only to deny the accused bail. Further, the allegations that the appellant Sadam Hussain wanted to eliminate Kumaresan because he resisted converting his son to Islam, would fall short of amounting to a 'terrorist act' under UAPA.

As per the prosecution, the appellant was found in suspicious circumstances and was picked up by a constable in March. Upon inquiry, he allegedly informed the police that he was a member of the Indian Muslim Development Association (IMDA). He further allegedly confessed that he, along with three other co-accused, was 'deployed' there by the President of IMDA. Additionally, he allegedly confessed that the IMDA chief asked him to alert him whenever Kumaresan arrived so that he, along with the other two men, could kill Kumaresan with the appellant.

The cops claimed that Kumaresan's son married a Muslim girl and her parents wanted the son to convert to Islam. However, Kumaresan opposed the proposal, and thus, the girl's parents asked the appellant, along with the IMDA chief, to kill Kumaresan. The police claimed that the motive was to eliminate Kumaresan and to send a strong message to the Hindu community to not marry Muslim people and convert them to Hinduism.

The judges said that the contention regarding the motive was contradictory. If the accused intended to kill Kumaresan to prevent him from being an obstacle to his son's conversion to Islam, the modus operandi would have been to kill him while keeping his plan secret. Nevertheless, if they wanted to create fear and terror among those of other beliefs, they would have killed Kumaresan openly.

The court further noted that the police initially registered an offense under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Criminal Law Amendment (CLA) Act and later invoked UAPA. 

The Court also noted that there is no other material to point out that the appellant had intended to commit the murder and to create terror among the public. In view of the same, the bench granted bail to the appellant.