No Legal Provision To Grant Interim Bail To Accused Under UAPA: Punjab & Haryana High Court
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has refused to grant interim-bail to a man accused under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), observing that there is no such provision either under Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) or special provision.
Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Kuldeep Tiwari said, "there is no provision either in the Cr.P.C. or in the special statute (supra), wherebys this Court is bestowed with any jurisdiction to grant any interim bail. Contrarily the provisions as occur in the Cr.P.C., which but are applicable to the special statute concerned, do purvey a privilege to the accused to claim regular bail in terms of Section 439 Cr.P.C."
These observations were made while hearing the appeal under Section 21 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, challenging the order of Trial Court whereby the relief for interim bail was rejected to accused charged under UAPA.
The petitioner Baljit Singh along with others were arrested for allegedly pointing gun at police and trying to throw hand grenade. According to prosecution several weapons were recovered from them.
In March 2022 the chargesheet was filed in the case and the police in a supplementary chargesheet filed in August, invoked provisions of UAPA against them. However, the challan was not accompanied by sanction for prosecution under the UAPA.
Counsel appearing for Singh relied on Manjeet Singh Vs. State of Punjab, [2023 (4) RCR (Criminal) 323], wherein the High Court said that the accused ought to be released on interim bail if decision on sanction is not taken.
State counsel submitted that the authorities has returned the file seeking sanction in the case and hence the sanction was not granted under UAPA. It was further stated that two more cases under IPC and Arms Act have been registered against Singh.
After hearing the submissions, the division bench disagreed with the opinion of a coordinate bench in Manjeet Singh Vs. State of Punjab, [2023 (4) RCR (Criminal) 323], wherein in a UAPA case it was held that, "if no decision on sanction is taken and communicated within the period as specified in the 2008 Rules, the accused ought to be released on interim bail."
Speaking for the bench Justice Thakur opined that Manjeet Singh verdict is in conflict with Apex Court's ruling in Judgebir Singh and Ors. Versus National Investigation Agency [2023 LiveLaw (SC) 377], in which the Supreme Court held,
"...it may be open for the accused to argue that his right to have a speedy trial could be said to have been infringed thereby violating Article 21 of the Constitution. This may at the most entitle the accused to pray for regular bail on the ground of delay in trial. But the same cannot be a ground to pray for statutory/default bail under the provisions of Section 167(2) of the CrPC."
The Court observed, "A plain reading of the above extracted paragraph but makes candid speakings, that the inordinate delay in placing the order of sanction before the learned Special Judge, if ultimately leads, to delay becoming caused vis-a-vis, the progression of the trial qua the charge drawn against the accused, or as proposed to be drawn in the report filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C., thereupon, the said causing of delay as arising from the non placing on record of the order of sanction to prosecute the accused, rather may not cause any breach to the mandate of fair and speedy trial, as occurs in Article 21 of the Constitution of India."
The division bench concluded that there is no provision under the CrPC or special provision to grant interim-bail to the accused under UAPA.
In the light of the above, the Court did not find merit in the case and upheld the impugned order of the Trial Court.
Mr. Mitul Singh Rana, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. D.S.Lamba, DAG, Punjab.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 225