Time Frame For Grant Of Prosecution Sanction Under UAPA Rules Mandatory, Accused Entitled To Interim Bail In Case Of Delay: Punjab & Haryana High Court

In a significant ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that on conclusion of investigation and filing of challan, if no decision on prosecution sanction is taken and communicated within the period as specified in the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) (Recommendation and Sanction of Prosecution) Rules, 2008, the accused ought to be released on interim bail.

Observing that the provisions of UAPA are stringent and keeping in mind that, a specific time limit for grant of sanction has been specified, the division bench of Justice Harinder Singh Sidhu and Justice Lalit Batra said,

"It would be a travesty of justice if the accused is kept in custody for long periods after conclusion of investigation, just to await sanction so that cognizance may be taken. As no consequence for the delay in grant of sanction has been stipulated in the UA(P) Act or Rules, in our view it would be appropriate that in such a case the accused is released on interim bail to surrender once the sanction is received."

The court said in such cases at the time of grant of interim bail, the accused would give an undertaking that as and when sanction is granted he would surrender before the Court. Upon his surrender it would be open to the accused to avail of his remedies including to apply for bail, said the bench.

While concurring with Kerala High Court's decision that the “time frame for grant of sanction” prescribed in UAPA rules is “mandatory”, the division bench, however, did not express any opinion on the question that if cognizance is taken on a sanction order granted after the prescribed period, whether the same would be vitiated.

"That situation is not before us and there is no occasion to consider this," said the court.

It also noted that appeal against the Kerala High Court ruling was withdrawn and the question of law was kept open. The court also relied on Vijay Rajmohan v. CBI where the question on grant of sanction had arisen in the context of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 

The court made the observations while dealing with an appeal against the rejection of default bail application under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. by Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar in a UAPA Case related to writing of 'Khalistan Zindabad' with black paint on the wall outside the office of one Gulshan Sharma.

The appellant is accused under Sections 153-A and 153-B, read with Section 120-B of the IPC, as well as Section 13 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA), and Section 3 of the PDPA, 1985.

The statutory period of 90 days for the presentation of the charge sheet was to end on October 10, 2022 as no application for extension of time period was moved. The police presented chargesheet against him on October 8 under Sections 153-A, 153-B, 120-B IPC, Section 13 of the UA(P) Act and Section 3 of the PDPA 1985, without obtaining any sanction from the competent authorities under Section 45 of the UA(P) Act and Section 196 CrPC.

The court noted that on October 6, 2022, an application for grant of sanction to prosecute the appellant was moved and the charge sheet against him was presented in the court on October 8, 2022.

“No decision thereon has been taken. The period prescribed under the Rules has long since expired,” the court said, while referring to the application seeking prosecution sanction 

As per Rule 3, the Authority shall, under sub-section (2) of Section 45 UAPA, make its report containing the recommendation to the Central Government or as the case may be, the State Government within seven working days of the receipt of the evidence gathered by the Investigating Officer under the Code.

"The Central Government or, as the case may be, the State Government shall, under sub-section (2) of Section 45 of the Act, take a decision regarding sanction for prosecution within seven working days after receipt of the recommendation of the Authority," the Rule 4 states.

Granting interim bail to the accused, the court said he would file an undertaking that he would surrender back if the sanction is granted.

NOTE: Justice Sidhu retired on May 16.

ALSO READ: Explained | UAPA Prosecution Sanction, Process and Interpretations

Case Title: Manjeet Singh v. State of Punjab

Appearances: Mitul Singh Rana, Advocate for the appellant.

Mohit Kapoor, Additional AG, Punjab.

Click Here To Read/Download Order