Courts should not hesitate to grant bail under UAPA in deserving cases: Supreme Court
Refusing bail to one who deserves it merely on the ground that the offence is serious would be a violation of the accused’s fundamental right to life and due procedure under Article 21, says Bench
The Supreme Court held that bail should be granted if a case is made out for personal liberty even if the offence is one under the draconian UAPA which punishes terror acts.
| Photo Credit: Sushil Kumar Verma
The Supreme Court on Tuesday held that bail should be granted if a case is made out for personal liberty even if the offence is one under the draconian Unlawful Activities Prevention Act or UAPA which punishes terror acts.
“When a case is made out for grant of bail, the courts should not have any hesitation in granting bail. The allegations of the prosecution may be very serious. But the duty of the courts is to consider the case for grant of bail in accordance with the law. ‘Bail is the rule and jail is an exception’ is a settled law,” a Bench headed by Justice A.S. Oka observed.
The judgment followed an appeal filed by a retired police constable accused of harbouring persons linked to the Popular Front of India (PFI). The police had raided the building, which was in his wife’s name, and allegedly found incriminating material connected to the PFI.
Bail can be granted if the conditions in the statute, in this case, UAPA, were met. Once a case for bail was made out, it cannot be denied or declined.
“Even in a case like the present case where there are stringent conditions for the grant of bail in the relevant statutes, the same rule holds good with only modification that the bail can be granted if the conditions in the statute are satisfied,” Justice Oka observed.
Refusing bail to one who deserves it merely on the ground that the offence is serious would be a violation of the accused’s fundamental right to life and due procedure under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The accused Jalaluddin Khan was arrested in July 2022. The trial had not made any progress. The building was in his wife’s name.
“Assuming that the appellant knew that co-accused Athar Parvez [the tenant and accused number 1] was associated with PFI, it is not listed as a terrorist organisation within the meaning of Section 2(m) of UAPA… There is absolutely no material on record to show that there was any conspiracy to commit any terrorist act to which the appellant was a party,” the court held, ordering Mr. Khan to be released on bail.
Read Comments
- Copy link
- Telegram
READ LATER
Remove
SEE ALL
PRINT
Related Topics
judiciary (system of justice)
/
court administration