Why were the accused denied bail under Sosma 2012?

Question

Accepted Answer

Bail Denied for Accused Under Sosma 2012 Due to Court Authority Limitations and Offence Nature

The accused were denied bail because the Sessions Court lacks the authority to rule on decisions made under the Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012 (Sosma), and the charges filed under this act pertain to non-bailable offenses. Sosma, enacted in 2012, significantly restricts bail for individuals accused of terrorism-related activities, reflecting a global trend in treating such offenses with increased stringency.
Sessions Court Lacks Jurisdiction for Sosma Bail Decisions

The prosecution argued that the Sessions Court does not possess the legal authority to grant bail for cases prosecuted under Sosma 2012. This limitation stems from the specific provisions within Sosma, which vest certain decision-making powers, including those related to bail for scheduled offences, in higher courts or through specific procedures not available at the Sessions Court level. Consequently, any application for bail in such cases must be made through the appropriate channels as defined by the Act, bypassing the initial trial court.
Offence Category Under Sosma is Non-Bailable

Offences charged under Sosma 2012 are generally considered non-bailable, particularly those linked to terrorism. The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), the group in question, was officially designated a terrorist organisation by Malaysia in 2014, having been active until its defeat in 2009. This classification means that the alleged support for, or possession of materials related to, the LTTE falls under severe anti-terrorism legislation, which prioritises national security over immediate release pending trial.
Global Trend of Strict Bail Conditions for Terrorism Offences

The denial of bail in these cases aligns with international practices for handling terrorism-related charges. Globally, many jurisdictions have enacted or strengthened laws like Sosma to address the perceived threat of terrorism, often including provisions that make bail exceptionally difficult to obtain. This approach is rooted in the belief that individuals accused of serious security offences pose a significant risk to public safety and may abscond or continue their illicit activities if released. The stringent bail conditions are thus a measure to ensure the accused remain in custody to prevent further potential harm and to guarantee their presence in court.

Reading history

Hide →

This history is cleared when the page is closed.

Why were the accused denied bail under Sosma 2012?

Loading

Was this article helpful?

Helpful

Not helpful

Report an issue

1

0

0

Share with friends