Madras HC Dismisses Bail Appeal of Accused in 2022 Coimbatore Temple Blast Case, Orders Constitution of Exclusive NIA Courts in Tamil Nadu

The Division Bench found prima facie material linking the appellant to a terror conspiracy via car supply and a pre-blast meeting, while separately directing formation of two exclusive UAPA courts in Tamil Nadu.

A Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Madras, comprising Dr. Justice Anita Sumanth and Justice Sunder Mohan, dismissed on 27 August 2026 a criminal appeal filed by Mohamed Thalha, the third accused (A3) in the 23 October 2022 Coimbatore temple bomb blast case. The court refused bail under Section 43-D(5) of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA), finding prima facie grounds to believe that the accusations against the appellant were not untrue. Beyond the bail question, the bench went further: it suo motu impleaded Union of India and the Tamil Nadu State government, and directed them to appear on 24 September 2026 to report compliance on constituting two exclusive Special Courts for UAPA and NIA cases in Tamil Nadu.

The Blast, the Accused, and the Charges

At 4:00 a.m. on 23 October 2022, a Maruti 800 car bearing registration number TN-01-F-6163 exploded in front of the Arulmigu Kottai Sangameshwarar Temple in Ukkadam, Coimbatore. The car had been driven by Jamesha Mubeen, identified as A1, who died in the blast. A case was registered as Crime No. 207 of 2022 under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Section 3(a) of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, and was taken over by the National Investigation Agency.

Mohamed Thalha was arrested on 24 October 2022, the day after the blast, and has remained in judicial custody since. The NIA filed a charge sheet on 20 April 2023, charging him under Sections 34, 120-B and 153A of the Indian Penal Code, Section 6 of the Explosive Substances Act, and Sections 16, 18, 20, 38 and 39 of UAPA. The matter was taken on file as Spl. S.C. No. 2 of 2023 before the Special Court at Poonamallee. His bail had already been rejected twice before the present appeal.

The prosecution's case was that Thalha, operating under the cover of a used car dealership, purchased the Maruti 800 from one Senthil Kumar (L.W.35) on 20 June 2022 for Rs. 21,000/- and handed it over to A1 on the very same day, without completing vehicle transfer formalities. The prosecution characterised this as logistical support for the terror plot, which it alleged was aimed at carrying out violent acts against Hindu temples during the 2023 Diwali period.

Arguments Before the Division Bench

Mr. Vikram Veerasamy, counsel for the appellant, denied any involvement in the terror attack. His primary submission was that the sale of the car was a legitimate business transaction, conducted for consideration, and that all evidence collected related only to routine used-car dealings. He argued that even if the appellant held a certain ideology, mere ideological inclination or radical motivation would not constitute an offence under UAPA. He further contended that the witnesses did not support the prosecution's case, and that contact between the appellant and deceased A1 through digital devices did not, in the absence of other clinching evidence, justify an adverse inference.

The appellant also pressed the length of his incarceration. He had been in custody since 24 October 2022 and, with the trial showing little progress, sought bail on the ground of prolonged detention.

Mr. ARL. Sundaresan, Additional Solicitor General, appearing for the NIA and assisted by Mr. T. Shanmugam and Mr. G. Siddi Ramulu, drew the bench's attention to incriminating material recovered from the appellant's digital devices, testimony of several witnesses, and statements of protected witnesses. The prosecution also highlighted the appellant's family connections: his father is serving a life sentence in the 1998 Coimbatore serial bomb blast case and is a founding member of the proscribed organisation Al-Ummah, as is his paternal uncle. The prosecution argued that these antecedents raised a real risk that the appellant, if released, would hamper the investigation, tamper with evidence, and intimidate witnesses.

Prima Facie Assessment Under Section 43-D(5) of UAPA

The bench applied the well-settled test under Section 43-D(5) of UAPA: bail may not be granted if the court, on a perusal of the case diary or the report made under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is of the opinion that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against the accused is prima facie true.

The bench identified several strands of evidence, which it considered cumulatively.

The car transaction itself was undisputed. The appellant purchased the Maruti 800 on 20 June 2022 and handed it over to A1 on the same day. The bench noted that the vehicle was handed over without fulfilling vehicle transfer obligations, and that the haste suggested a purpose beyond ordinary commerce.

Witness testimony went further than merely confirming the sale. L.W.40, a mechanic, spoke about seeing A2 and A7 accompanying A1 to his garage on 20 June 2022 — the day the car changed hands. L.W.62, L.W.63 and L.W.64 witnessed the sale of the vehicle by the appellant to A1, who was accompanied by A2 and A7. L.W.65 and L.W.66 not only witnessed the car sale but also deposed about seeing A1, A4, A5 and A6 loading explosive materials and gas cylinders into the car on 22 October 2022, two days before the blast.

The most significant piece of evidence, in the bench's view, came from protected witness L.W.99. L.W.99 deposed that on 15 June 2022 — five days before the car was purchased and eight days before the blast — he met A1 and the appellant at a Kabristan, where they discussed a “big plan against Kafirs and their places of worship, to equal the 1998 blasts.” The bench noted that this testimony was independently corroborated by a message recovered from the appellant's digital device, sent by deceased A1 on 15 June 2022, stating he was at the Kabristan. The bench treated this as material support for the protected witness's account.

The scrutiny report of the appellant's digital devices (D185) revealed images of the ISIS flag, the Maruti car used in the blast, recorded conversations between A1 and the appellant about the car purchase, videos containing Nasheed with voiceovers extolling jihad, and material linked to what the prosecution described as a propaganda outlet of the Islamic State.

Taking all of this together, the bench concluded: “we are persuaded to return a prima facie finding that the appellant was part of the terror conspiracy and had provided logistical support for the same.”

Distinguishing the Precedents Cited by the Appellant

The appellant had relied on several Supreme Court and High Court decisions to argue that ideological sympathy alone or digital content alone could not sustain UAPA charges. The bench engaged with each in some detail.

In Shoma Kanti Sen v. State of Maharashtra, the Supreme Court had found that though the accused was an active member of CPI (Maoist), the evidence did not reveal her involvement in any offensive act attracting UAPA. In Thwaha Fasal v. Union of India, bail was confirmed because there was no prima facie material showing an intention to further the activities of a terrorist organisation. In Jalaluddin Khan v. Union of India, the evidence related only to the accused attending meetings and training sessions with associates of the Popular Front of India. In the Delhi High Court's decision concerning Ammar Abdul Rahiman, and in its affirmation by the Supreme Court, it was held that being an ISIS sympathiser and holding digital devices containing objectionable photographs and videos, without dissemination, was insufficient to brand the accused a member of ISIS.

The bench distinguished all of these. In those cases, the courts found no prima facie evidence of an overt act linked to a terrorist act. In the present case, the appellant's role was not limited to ideology or association. He was the person who procured and delivered the car used in the blast, and the meeting of 15 June 2022, corroborated by the digital record, placed him within the conspiracy itself before the car was even purchased.

The bench also considered Suhail Ahmad Thokar v. National Investigation Agency and Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb, cited by both sides, noting that each turned on its specific facts. The conclusion remained that the cases cited by the appellant did not assist him given the material available in the present matter.

Suo Motu Directions on Exclusive NIA Courts in Tamil Nadu

The bench used the occasion to address a wider institutional concern: the slow pace of NIA and UAPA trials. The charge sheet in this case was filed on 20 April 2023, and the trial remains ongoing more than three years after the blast. Co-accused were arrested between 24 and 26 October 2022, and bail had been rejected multiple times across the board.

The bench referred to the Supreme Court's suo motu proceedings in In Re: Creation of Special Exclusive Courts, in which the Supreme Court has been monitoring the establishment of Special Courts for NIA cases. An Office Memorandum dated 7 January 2026, issued by the Central Government, set out norms for reimbursement of State expenditure incurred in setting up and running such courts. By order dated 24 March 2026, the Supreme Court directed that exclusive NIA courts be constituted to handle UAPA trials on a day-to-day basis, with Presiding Officers not assigned any other matters.

In a subsequent order dated 8 May 2026, the Supreme Court fixed the norm of one exclusive Special Court for every block of 10 to 15 pending trials, with at least two courts where pendency exceeds 15 trials, and at least three where it exceeds 25.

As of 24 August 2026, the Poonamallee Special Court had 39 cases pending: 24 relating to scheduled offences under the NIA Act, one under the Prevention of Terrorism Act, and 14 anti-terrorism squad cases. Tamil Nadu is among the 17 States identified by the Supreme Court as having more than 10 pending NIA trials. By the Supreme Court's own norms, at least two exclusive courts are required.

The Madras High Court had forwarded a proposal for constituting an exclusive court to the Additional Chief Secretary to Government as early as 8 June 2026, and intimated the Central Government by letter dated 15 July 2026. The Central Government wrote to the Chief Secretary of Tamil Nadu and the Registrar General of the Madras High Court on 23 June 2026, requesting constitution of such courts. The State Government's consent was still awaited as of the date of the present order.

To move this forward, the Division Bench suo motu impleaded the Secretary to Government, Union of India, Ministry of Home Affairs (as R2) and the Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home (Courts-II) Department, Tamil Nadu (as R3). Senior Panel Counsel Mr. K.S. Jeyaganesan accepted notice for R2 and State Government Pleader Mr. M. Guruprasad accepted notice for R3. The matter was listed for 24 September 2026 for a compliance report.

Order

The criminal appeal was dismissed. The bail application of Mohamed Thalha (A3) stands rejected. The bench expressly noted that all observations on the evidence were made solely for the purpose of the bail question under Section 43-D(5) of UAPA and shall not influence the trial. No costs were awarded.

Separately, the Union of India and the Tamil Nadu State government were directed to appear on 24 September 2026 and report compliance on the constitution of two exclusive Special Courts for UAPA and NIA cases in Tamil Nadu, in line with the Supreme Court's directions in In Re: Creation of Special Exclusive Courts.