The Kerala High Court has granted bail to three Maoists—Rajan Chittilappally of Thrissur, R Raghavendran of Vellore in Tamil Nadu, and Deepak of Chhattisgarh—after they spent several years in custody in connection with the 2016 Nilambur arms case. The case involves alleged illegal arms training conducted in a reserve forest.
Bail Granted by Division Bench
A bench of Justices P Gopinath and P M Manoj granted bail to the three undertrial prisoners, considering that they had been in custody for a considerably long period. Notably, three other accused in the case had already been released on bail earlier.
Prosecution Allegations
The prosecution alleges that the petitioners, along with other accused, entered a deep forest area in Nilambur and underwent arms training in 2016. The case is currently under trial before the NIA special court in Kochi.
Rajan was arrested on December 18, 2020, while he was admitted to a private hospital following a vehicle accident. Raghavendran and Deepak were arrested in 2021. The accused contended in their petition that the first three accused in the case had been granted bail earlier by the High Court.
NIA's Opposition
The deputy solicitor general, appearing for the National Investigation Agency (NIA), vehemently opposed the bail plea. She submitted that bail had earlier been granted to the other accused due to delays in the commencement of the trial. She pointed out that the trial is now underway and that nearly 94 of the 287 witnesses have already been examined. It was also submitted that two of the petitioners are not residents of Kerala and that there is a likelihood of them absconding if released on bail.
Stringent Conditions Imposed
However, the High Court granted bail to the petitioners subject to stringent conditions. These include:
- They shall remain within Ernakulam district until the completion of the trial.
- They must use only one mobile number during the bail period and communicate that number to the NIA investigating officer.
- They must remain accessible on the said number at all times and shall not switch off or discard the device without prior intimation.
The court's decision reflects a balance between the rights of the accused and the concerns of the prosecution. The case continues to be monitored closely as the trial progresses.
