UAPA | Bail Can't Be Denied Merely Because Allegations Are Serious If There Is No Prima Facie Case : Punjab & Haryana High Court

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has granted bail to a man booked under stringent Unlawful Prevention of Activities Act (UAPA), observing that there was no prima facie case made out in the case for allegedly planning to commit some terrorist acts based on relations with Pakistan.

A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Ritu Bahri and Justice Manisha Batra noted that, "on the basis of allegations as levelled against the appellant, prima facie no case can be stated to have been made out to presume that there had been any conspiracy between the appellant and the co-accused to form membership of a terrorist gang and to commit acts against the interest of the nation."

"The statute of UAP Act has stringent provisions but that makes the duty of the Court to be more onerous and it is well settled that merely because allegations were serious, on that reason alone, bail cannot be denied," the Court observed.

Reliance was also placed on the  Supreme Court's decision in Vernon v. The State of Maharashtra and another 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 575.

The Court was deciding the bail plea of one Gursewak Singh, against whom an FIR was lodged in 2020 under Sections 379-B, 382, 399, 402, 411, 467, 468, 472, 473 IPC, Sections 15, 16, 17, 18, 18B of UAPA and Section 25 sub sections 6, 7 and 8 of Arms Act and Section 52/54 of Prisons Act.

It was alleged that Singh was a part of the gang who was hatching plans to commit some terrorist acts in different places in the country. It was also submitted that as per disclosure statement of the co-accused the appellant and other accused had robbed 30 kg of gold from IIFL Gold Loan Branch, Gill Road, Ludhiana.

Considering the submissions, the Court noted that as per Section 45 of UAPA, no Court shall take cognizance of any offence falling under Chapter IV without previous sanction of the Central Government or as the case may be, the State Government.

Admittedly, the sanction for prosecution of the appellant and co-accused in this case had not been granted by the competent authority till the date of presentation of the challan and it was accorded later and then the said sanction is shown to have been filed in the Court along with supplementary challan report. It is, therefore, debatable as to whether the Court was even competent to take cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections Sections 16, 17, 18 and 18B of UAP Act till the date when sanction was granted under Section 45 of UAP Act, added the Court.

The bench noted further that no specific role has been attributed to Singh to support the allegations of being involved in anti national activities. 

"He is in custody w.e.f. 05.07.2020. Only 1 out of 38 witnesses have been examined so far. No recovery whatsoever had been effected from the appellant in this case and one revolver and ten live cartridges were allegedly recovered from him in another case which was registered prior to this case at Police Station Mohali," it added.

The Court concluded that on the basis of allegations as levelled against the appellant, prima facie no case can be stated to have been made out to presume that there had been any conspiracy between the appellant and the co-accused to form membership of a terrorist gang and to commit acts against the interest of the nation.

Stating that the appellant is in custody for a period of about three and half years and that the trial is likely to take time, the Court granted the relief.

Consequently, the order of Special Court which rejected the bail was set aside.

Appearance: Rajiv Malhotra, Advocate, for the appellant.

Alankar Narula, AAG, Punjab.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (PH) 233

Title: Gursewak Singh v. State of Punjab

Click here to download/read the order