Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 – s.43-D(5) – Constitution of India – Article 21 – Denial of bail to the appellant – Challenge to:
Held: Impugned judgment set aside – The PFI of which the appellant was a member has not been declared a terrorist organisation within the meaning of Section 2(m), UAPA, 1967 – It is not mentioned as a terrorist organisation in the first schedule thereof – The chargesheet and the statement of witness ‘Z’ when seen as it is, it would not be possible to record prima facie finding that commission of offence under the UAPA, 1967 would be attracted as there are no reasonable grounds for believing that the accusations are prima facie correct – Statement of the protected witnesses does not mention anything specific that would be attributed to the appellant which could prima facie attract charges under UAPA – Test relating to Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA, 1967 satisfied – Further, the appellant was arrested on 12.07.2022 and has undergone custody for more than two years and four months– Chargesheet was filed on 07.01.2023 but till date charges have not been framed – There are 40 accused and 354 witnesses to be examined – Trial is not likely to be completed soon – Appellant cannot be allowed to languish in jail indefinitely and that too without a trial in violation of Article 21 – Co-accused of the Appellant has been granted bail on similar grounds – Appellant granted bail on the conditions to be fixed by the Special Court. [Paras 28, 31-34] Criminal Law – Bail – Bar/strict statutory provisions – Constitution of India – Article 21 – Right of speedy trial – Grant of bail in cases of long incarceration, delay in conclusion of the trial – Discussed:
Held: Keeping the statutory provisions in mind but with the passage of time the effect of that statutory provision would in fact have to be diluted giving way to the mandate of Part III of the Constitution where the accused as of now is not a convict and is facing the charges – Constitutional right of speedy trial in such circumstances will have precedence over the bar/strict provisions of the statute and cannot be made the sole reason for denial of bail – Therefore, the period of incarceration of an accused could also be a relevant factor to be considered by the constitutional courts not to be merely governed by the statutory provisions. [Para 20]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.