'Lengthy Trial Itself Becomes Punishment', Punjab & Haryana HC Grants Bail To UAPA Accused Arrested In 2019 For Alleged Terror Funding

The Constitutional Court would like to prevent a situation where the lengthy and arduous process of trial becomes the punishment in itself, said the Punjab & Haryana High Court while granting bail to a man who was arrested under stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) in 2019 for allegedly providing funding for terrorist activities.

Justice Anupinder Singh Grewal and Justice Lapita Banerji said,

"...long custody by itself would entitle the accused under UAPA to the grant of bail by invoking Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In the instant case only 23 out of 117 witnesses have been examined. The charges were framed on 09.12.2021 and it has taken over 2 ½ years to examine 23 witnesses. It would be difficult to hazard a guess about the conclusion of trial, when 94 witnesses are yet to be examined. The appellant is in custody for about 05 years and 09 months. The Constitutional Court would like to prevent a situation where the lengthy and arduous process of trial, becomes the punishment in itself."

These observations were made while hearing an appeal of Manjit Singh against the order of Trial Court wherein his bail in a case under Sections 124A, 153A, 153B, 120-B IPC, Sections 17,18,19 of UAPA and Section 25,54,59 of the Arms Act was rejected.

Senior advocate appearing for Singh submitted that the allegation against the appellant is that he had been funding the activities of 'Sikhs for Justice' which is an organisation banned under UAPA but the FIR was registered in 2018 and at that time the organisation was not banned.

It was declared unlawful by notification dated 10.07.2019 which was approved by UAPA Tribunal on 06.01.2020. Even if the organisation was banned and the applicant is alleged to be a member of a banned organisation, that by itself would not constitute an offence under UAPA unless he has committed acts which constitute an offence under UAPA, he added.

After hearing the submissions, the Court observed that, "We are conscious of the fact that an accused under UAPA cannot be granted bail unless the conditions set out under Section 43-D(5) of UAPA are satisfied."

"The allegations against the appellant are that he had received funds to the tune of Rs.14.63 lakhs during the period 2016-2019 which have been allegedly used to fund terrorist activities across the country. However, no recovery of any incriminating material either in the form of weapons, firearms, drugs or any other objectionable material has been effected from the appellant. He is said to have performed marriages of underprivileged girls which is denied only to the extent that marriages were not performed after October, 2017 and a sum of Rs.9 lakhs received thereafter is unaccounted," the bench noted.

Speaking for the bench Justice Grewal 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.

Reliance was placed on Apex Court's ruling in 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 right to speedy trial and long period of incarceration would be a good ground to grant bail to an under-trial for an offence punishable under UAPA.

The Supreme Court also 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.

The bench noted that it is true that "the appeal of co-accused Gurwinder Singh had been declined by the Coordinate Bench and the SLP had also been dismissed by the Supreme Court."

However, it is apt to notice that the allegations against the appellant appear to be different from the allegations levelled against co-accused Gurwinder Singh as the latter was alleged to have gone to Kashmir to procure weapons which were to be used in unlawful activities but there is no such allegation against the present appellant of having gone to Kashmir or any other place for procurement of weapons, added the Court.

While noting that Singh is in "custody for 05 years and 09 months and the end of the trial is not in sight," the Court allowed the plea and set aside the order of the Trial Court.

In the light of the above the Court directed to release the accused on bail subject to certain restrictions.

Mr. R.S. Bains, Senior Advocate with

Ms. Aarushi Garg, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Deepender Singh, Addl. A.G., Punjab.

Mr. Sukhdeep Singh Sandhu, Special Prosecutor for the respondent/NIA.

Title: Manjit Singh v. State of Punjab & anr.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 182

Click here to read/download the order