Can the blind lead the blind? Madras High Court directs TN Judicial Academy to train judges on UAPA, remand

The Madras High Court recently directed the Tamil Nadu Judicial Academy to conduct a "refresher course" for all judicial officers, and train them with a special focus on special laws such as the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA), SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act). .The direction was issued by a bench of Justices PN Prakash and N Anand Venkatesh on December 23 after noting that a magistrate's court had been extending the custody of a UAPA accused periodically in violation of the statutory mandate under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).The Court emphasised that where a statutory bail petition is filed immediately on the expiry of 90 days, an indefeasible right accrues in favour of the accused for being released on bail, on account of default by the investigating agency in the completion of the investigation within the period prescribed and the accused is entitled to be released on bail, if he is prepared to furnish bail as directed by the court."This indefeasible right cannot be defeated/frustrated by the prosecution, by filing a petition seeking extension of the remand period from 90 days to 180 days. Such a petition filed subsequently cannot be entertained by the Court and the time cannot be extended, by dismissing the statutory bail petition filed by the accused," the order underscored.Due to the shortcomings by the sessions court and the magistrate's court in dealing with the bail plea of the accused, the High Court deemed it fit to order refresher court for judicial officers."Before we draw the curtains, we deem it appropriate to direct the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Academy to conduct a refresher course to the judicial officers, by focusing on the special enactments like UAP Act, POCSO Act, SC/ST Act, NDPS Act, etc. and make them aware of the procedure to be followed at the time of remand, extension of remand, extension of remand period from 90 days to 180 days, provided under certain enactments, taking cognizance of the final report etc.," the Court said.The Court was dealing with a bail application filed by a man arrested and charged under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code and the UAPA for being a member of the Islamic State.The bench was appalled to note that following the arrest of petitioner Mir Anas Ali by the local police in Ambur district in July 2022, the concerned magistrate's court had been extending his custody periodically, without the jurisdiction to do so. Further, instead of the special court or the sessions court presiding over his bail application, the sessions judge sent his bail plea back to the magistrate's court asking it to refrain from forwarding any case papers to the sessions court. Moreover, instead of transferring the investigation to a specialised agency since provisions of the UAPA had been invoked against Ali, the case was still being proved by the local police, the High Court noted..When the police failed to file its chargesheet within the prescribed 90-day period, Ali filed a plea for default bail that was initially allowed. But after grant of such bail, the police applied for extension of time from 90 to 180 days, which was granted, and Ali's bail was cancelled by the magistrate's court and the same was confirmed by the sessions court. Such lapses on part of the court's prompted the High Court to quote a parable from the Bible. "Before dealing with the issue that is involved in the present case, we are reminded of the famous parable of Lord Jesus, where he told his disciples thus: 'Can the blind lead the blind? Will they not fall into a pit' The reason why we started our discussion with this parable, will become evident once the reasons unfold," the Court said.."Can the blind lead the blind?"Madras High Court quotes from Bible.The Court further stated it was constrained to use harsh words in its order since the nature of allegations against the accused were serious and pertained to the nation's safety. "The respondent (local police) was proceeding in the case in a mechanical fashion. To add insult to injury, even the trained judicial officers were ignorant with respect to the procedures to be adopted in a case involving offences under the 1967 UAP Act," the Court observed.It granted bail to Ali subject to him executing a bond of ₹25,000 and two sureties, one of whom should be his parent. The Court then said it was imperative to issue directions to train judicial officers. "Taking cue from the above parable, the first blind person in this case is the learned Sessions Judge, who was guiding the learned Magistrate, who was also blind, due to ignorance of the legal position and ultimately, both of them fell in a pit, leading to illegal and non est orders passed by the learned Magistrate," the Court said. Advocate J Ravikumar appeared for the petitioner.Additional Public Prosecutor R Muniyapparaj appeared for the state. .[Read Judgment]