Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Bail To Woman Detained With Child In UAPA Case, Says No Incriminatory Material Against Her

The Punjab & Haryana High Court granted bail to a woman who had been detained in 2022 under the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, based on the disclosure statement of her husband.

Vijay Singh stated that his wife, Sukhpreet Kaur, supported him in the illegal activities. Singh in his disclosure statement said that he collected a parcel containing a hand grenade, a pistol, and other explosives from the border area.

Kaur was at the advance stage of pregnancy when booked under the Act and delivered the child in the prison. 

While noting that no incriminating material can be found against Kaur, the Court said there is no prima facie evidence to implicate her for the alleged offence under Sections 10, 13,18 & 20 of the UAPA.

A division bench of Justice Anupinder Singh Grewal and Justice Lalit Batra said, "We are conscious of the fact that the provisions of the UAPA are stringent. At the same time. it is necessary for the Court to carefully scrutinize and peruse the material against an accused."

Perusing the Section, the Court added that, in terms of Section 43(D)(5) of the UAPA, the Court would not direct the release of the petitioner on bail if there are reasonable grounds for believing that the allegations are prima facie true. In the instant case besides the statement of co-accused, who is the husband of the appellant, no incriminating material has been brought to the notice of this Court which would indicate prima face involvement of the appellant in the commission of the offence.

The Court further said that at the time of her arrest Kaur was stated to be at an advanced stage of pregnancy and a child was born in jail and by now, she has put in almost a year in custody. "The appellant has been arraigned as an accused on the statement of her husband-Vijay Singh, who in turn had been arraigned as an accused on the statement of co-accused Harpreet Singh @ Hira. The affidavits filed by the State...do not disclose any recovery from the appellant or her husband," added the bench.

Kaur had challenged the order passed by the Special Judge, Moga, Punjab dismissing her bail application under Section 439 CrPC for allegedly being member of an unlawful association and other offences under Sections 25(6), 25(7) of the Arms Act, Sections 10, 13, 18 & 20 of the UAPA  and Sections 3, 4, 5 & 6 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, registered in 2022.

The counsel appearing for Kaur argued that there is no discovery of any fact or any article in pursuance to the disclosure statement of her husband. The allegations against her husband of being involved in unlawful activities is also based on the statement of another co-accused from whom recovery of two pistols, 50 live cartridges and 03 grenades had been effected, he added.

Considering the submissions, the Court opined that, it is manifest from a bare reading of the statement of co-accused Vijay Singh, (her husband) that although it is described as a disclosure statement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act but interestingly there is "no discovery of any fact or recovery of any incriminating article from the appellant."

Reference was also made to the Apex Court's decision in Jaffar Hussain Dastagir v. State of Maharashtra in which it was held that, "Section 27 (of Evidence Act) is a proviso to Section 26 and makes admissible so much of the statement of the accused which leads to the discovery of a fact deposed to by him and connected with the crime, irrespective of the question whether it is confessional or otherwise. 'The essential ingredient of the section is that the information given by the accused must lead to the discover of the fact which is the direct outcome of such information. Secondly, only such portion of the information given as Is distinctly connected with the said recovery is admissible against the accused. Thirdly, the discovery of the fact must relate to the commission of some offence. The embargo on statements of the accused before the police will not apply if all the above conditions are fulfilled."

While noting that the appellant is a lady with an infant, who had been in custody for almost a year and there is no prima facie material to implicate her under UAPA, the Court set aside the order passed by the Special Judge, Moga.

Consequently, the Court ordered to release the applicant on regular bail.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (PH) 208

Appearance: Arshdeep Singh Brar for appellant

Karunesh Kaushal, AAG, Punjab

Title: Sukhpreet Kaur v. State of Punjab

Click here to read/download the order