UAPA Accused Gets Bail After 5 Yrs In Jail, P&H High Court Says 'No Record' To Show His Involvement In Terrorist Activities
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has granted bail to a man accused under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) after he spent more than five years in custody. The Court observed that there was no material evidence placed on record to prove that the accused had advocated or incited terrorist acts.
The allegation against the appellant was that he was a supplier of illegal arms and weapons to co-accused Dharminder Singh @ Guggni and his associates for commission of serious offences like murders, dacoity, loots, extortion etc. The FIR was lodged under Section 120-B of IPC, Section 25 of the Arms Act, Sections 10,13,18,20 of The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.
Justice Deepak Sibal and Justice Lapita Banerji said,
"In the present case, even if one assumes that the co-accused were indulging in terrorist acts or were participating in acts preparatory to the commission of terrorist acts, relevant material at this stage connecting the accused to advocating, abetting, advising, inciting or conspiring to commit any terrorist act had to be brought on record to justify rejection of bail especially after a long period of incarceration. However, no worthwhile record has been brought on record by the prosecution."
The Court pointed that for more than five and half years, no effort was made by the State to interrogate the main accused Dharminder Singh @ Guggni who is serving his sentence in connection with a different case in Tihar Jial, Delhi.
"The main co-accused is yet to be arrested in the present case despite challan being filed on March 01, 2021. No reasonable explanation has been provided as to why the main co-accused has not been arrested in the present case and why custodial interrogation has not been done till date," said Court.
Counsel for the Petitioner-accused argued that except for alleged recovery of one .30 bore pistol along with 04 live cartridges, no other incriminating material was alleged to have been recovered from him which could connect or link him to any offence under the UAPA.
From perusal of the affidavit filed on behalf of State, the Court noted that the appellant had been apprehended only on the basis of secret information given by one of the police officials. "The only evidence that has been brought on record at this stage are the statements made by the chance witnesses."
Speaking for the bench Justice Banerji said,
"It has been held by the Supreme Court in a catena of judgments that long custody by itself would entitle the accused under UAPA to the grant of bail by invoking Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Constitutional Court would like to prevent a situation where the lengthy and arduous process of trial becomes the punishment in itself."
Among other cases reliance was placed on Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb wherein the Supreme Court held that Section 43D (5) of UAPA per se does not oust the ability of Constitutional Courts to grant bail on ground of violation of Fundamental Right to Speedy Trial.
The Court noted that the charges under Section 120-B IPC, Section 25 of the Arms Act and Sections 10, 13, 18, 20 of the UAPA were framed on April 24, 2024 and only one witness out of 40 prosecution witnesses has been examined till date.
State counsel was also unable to give any reasonable estimate of the time that may be required for completion of the trial. Therefore, the Court "was left with no other option but to release the appeal on bail." (sic)
Mr. Amit Agnihotri, Advocate with Mr. Mani Makkar, Advocate with Ms. Anju Sharma Kaushik, Advocate with Mr. Abhishek Jindal, Advocate, For the petitioners.
Mr. Shekhar Verma, Addl. AG, Punjab.
Title: Ashish Kumar v. State of Punjab
Click here to read/download the order