Updated 3 February 2021 at 21:17 IST
Bail can be granted to an UAPA accused if there is no likelihood of a speedy trial: SC
The Supreme Court ruled that bail can be granted in UAPA cases if there is no likelihood of the trial being completed within a reasonable period of time.
- India News
- 3 min read
In a key verdict on Monday, the Supreme Court ruled that bail can be granted to a person booked under UAPA if there is no likelihood of the trial being completed within a reasonable period of time. This assumes significance as many persons charged under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act have been denied bail on account of Section 43-D(5) and the precedent set by the NIA v Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali verdict. As per Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA, the court shall deny bail to an accused if it feels that the accusation against such a person is 'prima facie' true after perusing the case diary or the charge sheet.
In the NIA vs Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali case, the apex court set aside the Delhi High Court verdict granting bail to an influential businessman from Jammu and Kashmir who was booked under provisions of the IPC and the UAPA. Observing that the HC had adopted an "inappropriate approach", it held that an elaborate examination of evidence was not required to be done while considering the bail application. The current matter pertained to the NIA's plea against the Kerala High Court order dated July 23, 2019, whereby a person accused of chopping Professor TJ Joseph's right palm in 2010 was granted bail.
The SC verdict
A three-judge bench of the SC comprising Justices NV Ramana, Surya Kant and Aniruddha Bose pointed out that liberty guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution also covers access to a speedy trial. Making it clear that Section 43-D(5) does not preclude the ability of courts to grant bail, the top court observed that the Kerala HC had also taken into consideration that the accused had suffered incarceration of nearly 5 and a half years while there was. Dismissing the NIA's plea, the bench also highlighted that Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA was less stringent than Section 37 of the NDPS Act where the court has to be satisfied prima facie that the accused is not guilty before granting bail.
Advertisement
In paragraph 18 of the verdict dated February 1, the SC held, "It is thus clear to us that the presence of statutory restrictions like Section 43-D(5) of UAPA per se does not oust the ability of Constitutional Courts to grant bail on grounds of violation of Part III of the Constitution. Indeed, both the restrictions under a Statue as well as the powers exercisable under Constitutional Jurisdiction can be well harmonised. Whereas at commencement of proceedings, Courts are expected to appreciate the legislative policy against grant of bail but the rigours of such provisions will melt down where there is no likelihood of trial being completed within a resonable time and the period of incarceration already undergone has exceeded a substantial part of the prescribed sentence. Such an approach would safeguard against the possibility of provisions like Section 43-D(5) of UAPA being used as the sole metric of bail or for wholesale breach of constitutional right to speedy trial."
Advertisement
Published By : Akhil Oka
Published On: 3 February 2021 at 21:17 IST