KOCHI: In a significant judgment that reinforces the supremacy of constitutional rights over stringent special laws, the Kerala High Court has granted bail to a Sri Lankan national and alleged operative of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE). The accused, Satkunam (also known as Sabesan), had been in custody for over four years in connection with a high-profile terror funding and arms smuggling case investigated by the National Investigation Agency (NIA).
The Division Bench, comprising Justice Susrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice P.V. Balakrishnan, observed that the fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution applies to everyone on Indian soil—not just citizens. The court emphasized that prolonged incarceration without the commencement of a trial justifies the grant of bail, even in cases involving serious charges under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).
The case dates back to October 2021, when the NIA arrested Satkunam, a Sri Lankan refugee residing in Chennai. According to the NIA's charge sheet, Satkunam was a former armed cadre of the LTTE and served in the outer security wing of the organization's late leader, V. Prabhakaran.
The prosecution alleged that Satkunam, along with several co-accused, conspired to revive the banned LTTE to wage war against the Sri Lankan government. To fund these activities, the NIA claimed the group was involved in large-scale trafficking of narcotics and illegal weapons. The investigation pointed to the procurement of:
- Over 300 kilograms of heroin.
- Five Type-56 rifles.
- 1,000 rounds of 9 mm ammunition.
The NIA further alleged that the proceeds from these illegal sales were laundered through gold and "hawala" channels, then invested in various properties to support LTTE operations across India and Sri Lanka.
The accused had approached the High Court after a Special NIA Court rejected his bail application in April 2024. The central conflict in this appeal was the interpretation of Section 43-D(5) and Section 43-D(7) of the UAPA.
Section 43-D(5) creates a high bar for bail, stating that a court should not release an accused if the prosecution's allegations appear "prima facie true." Furthermore, Section 43-D(7) specifically prohibits granting bail to a person who is not an Indian citizen and has entered the country illegally.
The NIA strongly opposed the bail, arguing that Satkunam had a criminal history, including a prior drug conviction, and posed a significant flight risk as a foreign national. They argued that the statutory bars under the UAPA were absolute in this scenario.
Rejecting the NIA’s arguments, the Kerala High Court held that statutory restrictions cannot "oust" or override the powers of Constitutional Courts to protect fundamental rights.
The Bench noted that the appellant had been in jail since October 5, 2021—more than four years and four months. Upon reviewing a status report from the Trial Court, the judges found a startling reality: the trial, involving 209 witnesses and 446 documents, was not likely to even begin until January 2027 and would likely only conclude by December 2027.
The Court held that:
- Speedy Trial is Mandatory: Following the precedent set by the Supreme Court in cases like Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb, the court ruled that if a trial is unlikely to conclude in a reasonable time, the rigors of UAPA bail conditions must give way to the right to liberty.
- Rights for Non-Citizens: The Court made a landmark observation regarding the rights of foreigners. It stated that the word "Life" in Article 21 is broad and applies to every person within India. Section 43-D(7) of the UAPA cannot be used as a "complete embargo" to keep a person in jail indefinitely without trial.
- No Absolute Bar: The Bench clarified that while the UAPA is a strict law, it does not mean an accused must wait in jail forever while the prosecution prepares its case.
While granting bail, the Court was careful to address the NIA's concerns about the accused being a flight risk. The bail was granted on a bond of ₹1 lakh with two solvent sureties, along with several strict conditions:
- Restricted Movement: The accused cannot leave the state of Kerala without the Special Court's permission.
- Surrender of Documents: He must surrender his passport (if any).
- Regular Reporting: He must report to the local police station on the first and third Saturdays of every month.
- Digital Monitoring: He must provide a single mobile number to the NIA and keep it accessible at all times.
- Conduct: He is strictly prohibited from tampering with evidence, influencing witnesses, or engaging in any similar criminal activity.
This ruling is a significant addition to the growing body of Indian jurisprudence that seeks to balance national security with individual liberty. By prioritizing the "Right to a Speedy Trial" over the "UAPA Bail Bar," the Kerala High Court has sent a clear message: the law must ensure that "pretrial detention" does not turn into "punishment without conviction."
For the legal community, this case serves as a reminder that the constitutional "power of the purse" regarding liberty remains firmly with the Higher Judiciary, ensuring that even under the most stringent laws, the principle of "bail is the rule, jail is the exception" can still find life in cases of extreme delay.
Case Details
- Case Title: Satkunam @ Sabesan v. Union of India
- Case Number: Crl.A 1731/ 2024
- Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 117
- Bench: Justice Susrut Arvind Dharmadhikari & Justice P.V. Balakrishnan