Supreme Court Issues Notice On Bail Plea Filed By UAPA Accused In Custody Since More Than 5 Years

The Supreme Court today issued notice on the bail plea of a man booked under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, who has been in custody for over 5 years. 

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi passed the order, after hearing the petitioner's counsel who argued that the decision in Union of India v. KA Najeeb would apply to the case. "Could not understand the High Court judgment", remarked Justice Kant.

Briefly put, the present case pertains to the incident of extortion/levy collection by TPC cadres in Left Wing Extremist (LWE) affected state of Jharkhand. The petitioner was arrayed as an accused in the 2nd supplementary charge sheet and is in judicial custody since 17.05.2020. The provisions invoked include Sections 386/120-B of IPC, Sections 17,18,20 and 21 of UAPA and Section 17 of CLA Act 1908.

He had initially approached the Special Court seeking regular bail, claiming that he had been in custody for more than 4 years and trial was unlikely to conclude in near future. On the other hand, NIA submitted that the charge in the case had been framed and trial was at advance stage. However, his plea was rejected.

In appeal, the Jharkhand High Court upheld the special court order, while distinguishing KA Najeeb's case. "the fact of the instant case is that there are only 53 witnesses approximately which is very much less in comparison to 276 witnesses of aforesaid case. Adverting to the factual aspects of the present case both on the principle of Section 43-D(5) and the judgment rendered in the case of Union of India Vs. K.A. Najeeb (supra) along with the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the fact which has come against the appellant as per the 2nd supplementary charge- sheet is very grave and serious in nature...the nature of the allegation has shown to be there prima facie attracting the ingredient of the UAP Act along with the other allied penal offences."

It relied on Gurwinder Singh v. State of Punjab case to observe that mere delay in trial pertaining to grave offences cannot be used as a ground to grant bail.

"the test for rejection of bail is quite plain. Bail must be rejected as a 'rule', if after hearing the public prosecutor and after perusing the final report or Case Diary, the Court arrives at a conclusion that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusations are prima facie true. It is only if the test for rejection of bail is not satisfied that the Courts would proceed to decide the bail application in accordance with the 'tripod test' (flight risk, influencing witnesses, tampering with evidence)."

The High Court was informed by NIA that charges had been framed against the petitioner in March, 2021 and the prosecution had examined 35 witnesses. Based on evidence collected and the chargesheet, the High Court denied parity with co-accused (who were released from custody on ground of long incarceration) and noted that the petitioner was an "armed cadre of TPC, a terrorist gang and was earlier an operative of CPI(Maoist). He used to extort levy from local contractors and businessmen". 

"He joined TPC in the year 2016...He used to demand, threaten and collect levy from several businessmen, leaf-traders, crusher owners tendu and Contractors engaged in civil construction and government development projects, by way of extortion...it is evident from the 2nd Supplementary Charge Sheet, that present appellant/accused being a member of the TPC, used use the collected levy from extortion and use the same to further terrorist activities and also acquired movable /immovable properties in name of his wife. These facts have been corroborated by several witnesses who deposed their statements U/s 161 & 164 CrPC."

The Court opined that deprivation of liberty must be justified as reasonable, after following of fair procedure, and due process was followed in the instant case. "In the instant case as we discussed herein above that prima facie the culpability of the appellant/ accused has been established on the basis investigation culminated in to charge-sheet and further the protected witnesses have corroborated the prosecution case and further the trial of the instant case is continuing therefore in the instant case, it appears that all the due procedure has been followed."

It concluded that there was sufficient prima facie evidence to indicate complicity of the petitioner in the alleged offence and dismissed the plea. Aggrieved, the petitioner approached the Supreme Court.

The petition is filed through AoR Balaji Srinivasan.

Appearance: AoR Balaji Srinivasan, Advocates Kanishka Singh, Aakriti Priya and Niranjan Kumar (for petitioner)

Case Title: DASHRATH SINGH BHOKTA @ DASHRATH GANJHU Versus UNION OF INDIA, SLP(Crl) No. 10018/2025

Click here to read order