UAPA | P&H HC Releases Man Arrested In 2020 For 'Anti-National Activities' For Possessing Phone Containing 'Objectionable' Pictures Of Weapons
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has granted bail to a man who was arrested in 2020 for allegedly being involved in "anti-national" activities under the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) in 2020.
Justice Anupinder Singh Grewal and Justice Lapita Banerji noted that "only a mobile phone is alleged to have recovered from him which is stated to have contained objectionable photographs of arms and ammunition etc. There is no other recovery either of firearms or any other incriminating material at this stage. The appellant is in custody for over 3 years and 8 months."
The division bench said, "Article 21 of the Constitution of India enshrines the fundamental right to protection of life and liberty which also includes the right to speedy trial, which is sacrosanct. 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 appellant is in custody for about 03 years and 08 months."
These observations were made while hearing an appeal against an order of Patiala Court whereby his bail application registered under Sections 13, 16, 18, 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 [UAPA], Section 25 of the Arms Act at Police Station Samana, District Patiala, was dismissed.
Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Arjun Sheoran argued that although it is alleged that the appellant was involved in unlawful activities but except recovery of a mobile phone, no other incriminating material has been recovered from him.
Counsel for the State submits that the allegations against the appellant are that he was allegedly involved in anti-national activities but only a mobile phone is alleged to have been recovered from him which is stated to have contained objectionable photographs of certain persons with weapons and showing 'Referendum 2020'.
He also submitted that the petitioner was in contact with anti-national elements and they were on the verge of executing some terrorist activity.
After hearing the submissions, the Court noted that, "the appellant is in custody for about 03 years and 08 months. The Constitutional Court would like to prevent a situation where the lengthy and arduous process of trial, becomes the punishment in itself."
Reliance was placed on the Union of India versus K.A. Najeeb, wherein it has been held that long custody would be an essential factor while granting bail under UAPA. Article 21 of the Constitution of India provides the right to a speedy trial and the long period of incarceration would be a good ground to grant bail to an under-trial for an offence punishable under UAPA.
"It has also been held that the embargo under Section 43- D of UAPA would not negate the powers of the Court to give effect to Article 21 of the Constitution of India," added the bench.
The bench also referred to the case of Shoma Kanti Sen v. State of Maharashtra & Anr [2024 LiveLaw (SC) 280], wherein the Apex Court said, "Once it is apparent that a timely trial is not possible and the accused has suffered incarceration for a significant period of time, the Court would ordinarily be obligated to enlarge them on bail as any form of deprival of liberty must be proportionate to the facts of the case and also follow a just and fair procedure."
Stating that "in view of the above especially when the appellant is in custody for 03 years and 08 months and the end of the trial is not in sight", the Court set aside the bail dismissal order and allowed the appeal.
While allowing the plea the Court also imposed certain conditions and the plea was disposed of.
Mr. Arjun Sheoran, Advocate Mr. Rohan Gupta, Advocate and Mr. Tejasvi Sheokand, Advocate for the applicant/appellant.
Mr. H.S. Sullar, Senior DAG, Punjab.
Title: RAJ KUMAR @ LOVEPREET @ LOVELY v. STATE OF PUNJAB
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 237