UAPA against P Jayarajan to stay, says Kerala High Court

The first chargesheet was accepted by Thal-assery sessions court on March 11, 2015.

KOCHI: The Kerala High Court on Thursday dismissed the petitions by 25 accused, including CPM Kannur district secretary P. Jayarajan, against imposing UAPA by the CBI against them in the Kathiroor Manoj murder case. A Single Bench observed that only the permission of the central government was needed to impose the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) in the case being probed by the CBI.

Mr Jayarajan is accused to be the mastermind behind the murder of RSS leader Kathiroor Manoj on September 1, 2014 and the Central government had allowed the CBI to impose UAPA provisions against the accused on April 7, 2015. The first chargesheet was accepted by Thal-assery sessions court on March 11, 2015.

The High Court, however, ruled that the accused can challenge the order in the trial court during trial proceedings if they have any objections. They had approached the court stating that the case was being probed by the CBI on the request of the state government and that the permission of the state government was needed to impose UAPA. Six accused, including Jayarajan, also contended that the permission of the central government was not valid. The court rejected all these contentions and the petition. Nineteen accused, including first accused Vikraman, contended that UAPA was imposed on them and chargesheet submitted before the central government gave the permission for the same.

The court said that this and the subsequent action of the Thalassery sessions court to accept the chargesheet were unsustainable and hence struck them down. It directed the Special CBI court in Ernakulam considering the case presently to make appropriate amendments and then impose UAPA on them. Pointing to the state government’s stand that UAPA cannot be imposed in the case, the court said that the state government was being more loyal than the king. It was unfortunate on the part of the state government to parrot the arguments of the petitioners, the court said. In a case where the state government was opposed to the CBI probe, how can it say that the CBI should secure permission from it for prosecution, the court asked.

( Source : Deccan Chronicle. )
Next Story