SUPREME COURTBail under UAPA, 1967 – Applicability of Section 43-D(5) – Principles and Constitutional Considerations – Long Incarceration and Delay in Trial - Prima Facie Assessment - Fundamental Rights and Speedy Trial - Precedence of Constitutional Rights - The Supreme Court reiterated the principles governing the grant of bail under Section 43-D(5) of the Unlawful Activities...
SUPREME COURT
Bail under UAPA, 1967 – Applicability of Section 43-D(5) – Principles and Constitutional Considerations – Long Incarceration and Delay in Trial - Prima Facie Assessment - Fundamental Rights and Speedy Trial - Precedence of Constitutional Rights - The Supreme Court reiterated the principles governing the grant of bail under Section 43-D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA), emphasizing Courts must assess whether the accusations are prima facie true based on the FIR, charge sheet, and case diary, considering the totality of evidence on broad probabilities. If accusations are not prima facie substantiated, bail may be granted. Inordinate delays in trial and long periods of incarceration without conviction violate Article 21 of the Constitution. Courts must harmonize statutory provisions with constitutional guarantees. While legislative intent must initially be adhered to, prolonged detention without trial mandates prioritization of constitutional rights over statutory bars under UAPA. The allegations against the appellant, including participation in meetings and protests organized by the Popular Front of India (PFI), did not establish prima facie involvement in terrorist activities under the UAPA. Protected witnesses' statements and recovered materials lacked incriminating evidence directly implicating the appellant. The appellant had been in custody for over two years without trial commencement, with 40 accused and 354 witnesses prolonging the trial. The Court set aside the High Court's denial of bail, granted bail to the appellant, and emphasized that denying bail in deserving cases contravenes Article 21. The Special Court was directed to release the appellant on appropriate terms within seven days. Athar Parwez v. Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1006
Validity of default bail granted under Section 167(2) of the CrPC read with Section 43-D of UAPA - Jurisdiction of the Magistrate in granting an extension of time for filing the chargesheet in cases under UAPA - The appeal arises from an order by the High Court granting default bail to the respondents involved in a bomb blast case, under multiple charges including UAPA and the NDPS Act. The High Court held the extension of time granted by a Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) was invalid as only a Designated Special Court could grant such extensions under UAPA. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order, emphasizing that the right to default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC must be exercised before the filing of the chargesheet. In this case, the chargesheet was filed on 29.04.2022, and the application for default bail was made on 02.09.2022, well after the filing, thereby extinguishing the right to default bail. The Court reaffirmed that the right to default bail is enforceable only until the chargesheet is filed. The jurisdictional error by the JMFC in granting an extension does not revive the right to default bail once the chargesheet has been filed. The appeal by the State was allowed, and the default bail granted by the High Court to the respondents was set aside. State of Punjab v. Sukhwinder Singh, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 990
The Supreme Court declared as bad in law the judgment of the High Court which held that an accused can be granted bail under the UAPA if he does not present any "clear and present danger" to the society. The High Court judgment, which granted bail to journalist also held that lowering of India's global reputation cannot be held to be a terrorist act within the meaning of Section 15 of the UAPA. The Court noted submissions that the High Court's reliance on Schenck v. United States, (249 US 47 (1919) : 1919 SCC Online US SC 62) was per incuriam in light of Indian precedents having rejected the application of the doctrine of “clear and present danger”. (Babulal Parate v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1961 SC 884; State of Madras v. V.G. Row, [(1952) 1 SCC 410 and Arup Bhuyan v. State of Assam, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 234). While declaring the High Court judgment to be per incuriam and directing that it should not be cited as a precedent, the Court however did not interfere with the bail granted to Fahad Shah. Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir v. Peerzada Shah Fahad, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 802
Higher thresholds for granting bail in stringent penal statutes like the PMLA, UAPA, and NDPS Act cannot be a tool to keep an accused incarcerated without trial. V. Senthil Balaji v. Deputy Director, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 750 : AIR 2024 SC 4760
Validity of sanction should be challenged at the earliest instance available, before the Trial Court. If such a challenge is raised at an appellate stage it would be for the person raising the challenge to justify the reasons for bringing the same at a belated stage. Such reasons would have to be considered independently so as to ensure that there is no misuse of the right of challenge with the aim to stall or delay proceedings. Fuleshwar Gope v. Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 729 : AIR 2024 SC 4684 : 2024 Cri LJ 4293
Timelines mentioned in Rules 3 & 4 of the 2008 Rules are couched in mandatory language and, therefore, have to be strictly followed. This is keeping in view that UAPA being a penal legislation, strict construction must be accorded to it. Timelines imposed by way of statutory Rules are a way to keep a check on executive power which is a necessary position to protect the rights of accused persons. Independent review by both the authority recommending sanction and the authority granting sanction, are necessary aspects of compliance with Section 45 of the UAPA. Fuleshwar Gope v. Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 729 : AIR 2024 SC 4684 : 2024 Cri LJ 4293
Bail - Denial of - Chhattisgarh Vishesh Jan Suraksha Act, 2005 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - National Investigation Agency Act, 2008; Section 21(4) - Co-accused had been granted bail and that there was no likelihood of early conclusion of the trial, with only 40 out of 100 prosecution witnesses examined. The petitioner has been in custody since 2020. Bail granted. Mukesh Salam v State of Chhattisgarh, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 641
Sections 13, 18, 18A, 20 and 43D (5) - Applicability of "Bail is the Rule, Jail is the Exception" – The principle of "bail is the rule, jail is the exception" is applicable even under stringent statutes like the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), subject to the satisfaction of statutory conditions. The Court emphasized that the duty of courts is to objectively assess the material in the charge sheet while considering bail applications, without being influenced by the severity of allegations or external factors such as the activities of associated organizations. The Court found that the charge sheet and witness statements did not prima facie establish reasonable grounds to believe that the accusations against the appellant were true. The High Court and Special Court failed to properly appreciate the appellant's case, focusing instead on the broader activities of the Popular Front of India (PFI). Denying bail in such circumstances would amount to a violation of the appellant's fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court set aside the impugned orders and directed the appellant's release on bail, with terms and conditions to be fixed by the Special Court. The findings were expressly limited to the bail application and would not affect the trial or the cases of co-accused. The appeal was allowed, and the appellant was granted bail. (Para 15 & 21) Jalaluddin Khan v. Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 571 : AIR 2024 SC 4380 : (2024) 10 SCC 574
A constitutional court cannot be restrained from granting bail to an accused on account of restrictive statutory provisions in a penal statute if it finds that the right of the accused-undertrial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India has been infringed. In that event, such statutory restrictions would not come in the way. Even in the case of interpretation of a penal statute, howsoever stringent it may be, a constitutional court has to lean in favour of constitutionalism and the rule of law of which liberty is an intrinsic part. (Para 32) Sheikh Javed Iqbal @ Ashfaq Ansari @ Javed Ansari v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 486 : AIR 2024 SC 3579 : (2024) 8 SCC 293
In the given facts of a particular case, a constitutional court may decline to grant bail. But it would be very wrong to say that under a particular statute, bail cannot be granted. It would run counter to the very grain of our constitutional jurisprudence. (Para 32) Sheikh Javed Iqbal @ Ashfaq Ansari @ Javed Ansari v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 486 : AIR 2024 SC 3579 : (2024) 8 SCC 293
Judgement in the case of NIA v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali, (2019) 5 SCC 1 cannot be cited as a precedent to deny bail in UAPA cases where the accused has suffered long incarceration. (Para 28) Sheikh Javed Iqbal @ Ashfaq Ansari @ Javed Ansari v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 486 : AIR 2024 SC 3579 : (2024) 8 SCC 293
Section 43-D(5) - Object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused at the trial, that the proper test to be applied in the solution of the question whether bail should be granted or refused is whether it is probable that the party will appear to take his trial and that it is indisputable that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment. If the State or any prosecuting agency including the court concerned has no wherewithal to provide or protect the fundamental right of an accused to have a speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution then the State or any other prosecuting agency should not oppose the plea for bail on the ground that the crime committed is serious. Article 21 of the Constitution applies irrespective of the nature of the crime. (Para 11 & 19) Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 437 : (2024) 9 SCC 813
Section 43D(5) – Bail order challenged – Rejection of bail on grounds that accusations against the respondents are prima facie true – The Court at the stage of considering the bail applications of the respondents-accused is merely required to record a finding on the basis of broad probabilities regarding the involvement of the respondents in the commission of the alleged offences. Held, there is sufficient material to believe that the accusations against the respondents-accused are prima facie true and that the mandate contained in the proviso to Section 43(D)(5) would be applicable for not releasing the respondents on bail. The Supreme Court should be slow in interfering with the order when the bail has been granted by the High Court, however if such order of granting bail is found to be illegal and perverse, it must be set aside. The High Court has committed gross error in not considering the material/evidence in its right and proper perspective that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusations against the respondents are prima facie true. Hence, the impugned order passed by the High Court cannot be sustained. The impugned order passed by the High Court is set aside. (Para 16, 17, 18, 22 & 24) Union of India v. Barakathullah, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 404 : AIR 2024 SC 3462 : 2024 Cri LJ 3183
Section 43B(1) and Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002; Section 19(1) – Interpretation of the phrase 'inform him of the grounds for such arrest' – Held, the provision regarding the communication of the grounds of arrest to a person arrested contained in Section 43B(1) of the UAPA is verbatim the same as that in Section 19(1) of the PMLA – It is a statutory mandate requiring the arresting officer to inform the grounds of arrest to the person arrested under Section 43B(1) of the UAPA at the earliest. Both the provisions find their source in the constitutional safeguard provided under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and the requirement to communicate the grounds of arrest is the same in both the statutes. Hence, applying the golden rules of interpretation, the provisions which lay down a very important constitutional safeguard to a person arrested on charges of committing an offence either under the PMLA or under the UAPA, have to be uniformly construed and applied. (Para 17, 18, 22 & 34) Prabir Purkayastha v. State, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 376 : AIR 2024 SC 2967 : 2024 Cri LJ 2450 : (2024) 8 SCC 254
Section 43B (1) – The proceedings of arrest and the police custody remand of appellant is questioned – On grounds that mandator requirement to communicate the grounds of arrest or the grounds of detention in writing to a person arrested is not provided – The arrest memo nowhere conveys the grounds on which the accused was being arrested. Keeping the accused in police custody without informing him the grounds on which he has been arrested; deprives the accused of the opportunity to avail services of the legal practitioner of his choice to oppose the prayer for police custody remand and seek bail. Held, the copy of the remand application in the purported exercise of communication of the grounds of arrest in writing was not provided to the accused appellant or his counsel before passing of the order of remand which vitiates the arrest and subsequent remand of the appellant. Further held, the mere fact that a charge sheet has been filed in the matter, would not validate the illegality and the unconstitutionality committed at the time of arresting the accused and the grant of initial police custody remand to the accused. The arrest of the appellant followed by remand order are hereby declared to be invalid in the eyes of law and are quashed and set aside. Hence, the appellant is entitled to a direction for release from custody. (Para 48, 50 & 51) Prabir Purkayastha v. State, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 376 : AIR 2024 SC 2967 : 2024 Cri LJ 2450 : (2024) 8 SCC 254
Section 2(1) (d) & 43D (2) and Criminal Procedure Code, 1973; Section 167(2) – Power to extend remand beyond 90 days – Under section 43D power is given to 'the court' to extend and authorise detention of the accused beyond a period of 90 days. As per section 2(1) (d), 'The court' would mean jurisdiction of a normal criminal Court and also includes a Special Court constituted under Section 11 or Section 22 of the NIA Act. Hence, the Chief Judge cum City Sessions Court had the jurisdiction to pass the order of extension of detention beyond 90 days. Held, the jurisdictional Magistrate would be clothed with the jurisdiction to deal with the remand of the accused albeit for a period of 90 days only under Section 167(2) of CrPC, because for authorising remand beyond 90 days, an express order of the Sessions Court or the Special Court, as the case may be, would be required by virtue of Section 43D (2) of UAPA. Hence, order of extension of remand by Chief Metropolitan Magistrate beyond the period of 90 days, was illegal. (Para 33, 35, 36, 37) State of West Bengal v. Jayeeta Das, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 312 : AIR 2024 SC 2161
Section 22(1) & 22(3) NIA Act – Power of Chief Judge cum City Sessions Court for trial of offences set out in the Schedule to the NIA Act – The State Government has been given exclusive power under Section 22(1) to constitute one or more Special Courts for trial of offences under any or all the enactments specified in the Schedule to NIA Act. The jurisdiction conferred by this Act on a Special Court shall, until a Special Court is designated by the State Government, be exercised by the Court of Session of the division in which such offence has been committed. Held, the State has not constituted a special court under Section 22, hence, the Chief Judge cum City Sessions Court had the power and jurisdiction to deal with the case by virtue of Section 22 (3). Hence, the order of Chief Judge cum City Sessions Court permitting the addition of the offences under UAPA to the case does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. (Para 23, 24, 28, 29 & 30) State of West Bengal v. Jayeeta Das, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 312 : AIR 2024 SC 2161
Section 15 & 16 of the 1967 Act –Terrorist act – Section 15(1) refers to certain acts which would constitute a terrorist act. To qualify for being a terrorist act, an act must be done with intent to threaten or likely to threaten the unity, integrity, security, economic security or sovereignty of India or such act must be accompanied with an intent to strike terror or likely to strike terror in the people or any section of the people in India or in any foreign country. In sub-clauses (a), (b), and (c) of section 15(1), the law stipulates the manner of commission of the acts to come within the ambit of the expression “terrorist act” under the 1967 legislation. Held, prima facie commission or attempt to commit any terrorist act by the appellant not found. (Para 30) Shoma Kanti Sen v. State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 280 : AIR 2024 SC 2169 : 2024 CriLJ 2001 : (2024) 6 SCC 591
Section 17 – Funding terrorist act – Held, no corroboration of the allegation that the appellant has funded any terrorist act or has received any money for that purpose. No prima facie case made out. (Para 31) Shoma Kanti Sen v. State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 280 : AIR 2024 SC 2169 : 2024 CriLJ 2001 : (2024) 6 SCC 591
Section 18 – Conspiracy or attempt to commit, advocate, abet, advice, incite or facilitate commission or any terrorist act. Held, mere participation in some meetings and attempt to encourage women to join the struggle for new democratic revolution, prima facie, do not reveal the commission of an offence under Section 18 of the 1967 Act. (Para 32) Shoma Kanti Sen v. State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 280 : AIR 2024 SC 2169 : 2024 CriLJ 2001 : (2024) 6 SCC 591
Section 20 & 38 – Membership of terrorist organisation – Mere meeting of accused individuals or being connected with them through any medium cannot implicate one in Chapter VI offences under of the 1967 Act, in the absence of any further evidence of being associated with a terrorist organisation. The offence under Section 20 not made out. (Para 34 & 35) Shoma Kanti Sen v. State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 280 : AIR 2024 SC 2169 : 2024 CriLJ 2001 : (2024) 6 SCC 591
Section 43D (5) – Bail – Long period of incarceration was held to be a valid ground to enlarge an accused on bail in spite of the bail restricting provision of Section 43D (5) of the 1967 Act. Taking cognizance of the composite effect of delay in framing charge, period of detention undergone by the accused, the nature of allegations against her vis-à-vis the materials available before this Court at this stage in addition to her age and medical condition, she ought not to be denied the privilege of being enlarged on bail pending further process. (Para 36 & 41) Shoma Kanti Sen v. State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 280 : AIR 2024 SC 2169 : 2024 CriLJ 2001 : (2024) 6 SCC 591
Section 43D(5) and Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 439 – Section 43D(5) of the UAP Act modifies the application of the general bail provisions in respect of offences punishable under Chapter IV and Chapter VI of the UAP Act. Bail must be rejected as a 'rule', if after hearing the public prosecutor and after perusing the 'final report' or 'Case Diary', the Court arrives at a conclusion that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusations are prima facie true. It is only if the test for rejection of bail is not satisfied, that the Courts would proceed to decide the bail application in accordance with the 'tripod test' (flight risk, influencing witnesses, tampering with evidence). The restrictions, on granting of bail in section 43D(5) are in addition to the restrictions under the Code of Criminal Procedure or any other law for the time being in force on grant of bail. The conventional idea in bail jurisprudence 'bail is the rule, jail is the exception' does not find any place while dealing with bail applications under UAP Act. The 'exercise' of the general power to grant bail under the UAP Act is severely restrictive in scope. The form of the words used in proviso to Section 43D(5) - 'shall not be released', in contrast with the form of the words as found in Section 437(1) CrPC - 'may be released', suggests the intention of the Legislature to make bail, the exception and jail, the rule. (Para 17, 18 & 20) Gurwinder Singh v. State of Punjab, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 100 : AIR 2024 SC 952 : (2024) 5 SCC 403
Section 43-D(5) - The petitioner challenged the High Court's rejection of bail and argued that the prosecution's reliance on inadmissible statements of co-accused and the absence of direct involvement in terrorist activities did not justify further detention. They also contended that the petitioner's association with an organization not listed as a banned terrorist group under the UAPA did not establish a connection to the alleged crime. However, the Court, referencing NIA v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali, (2019) 5 SCC 1 emphasized that under Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA, bail cannot be granted unless the Court finds the accusations prima facie untrue. Considering the petitioner's criminal antecedents and the charge-sheet, the Court held that the petitioner failed to meet the threshold for bail under the UAPA, leading to the dismissal of the petition. Mazhar Khan Vs. National Investigation Agency, (2024) 6 SCC 627
Section 43D(2)(b) - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 167(2) - Default Bail - Terrorism cases should not to be taken lightly. (Para 13) State of NCT of Delhi v. Raj Kumar @ Lovepreet @ Lovely, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 10 : AIR 2024 SC 244 : (2024) 2 SCC 632.
HIGH COURTS
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Case title - Mohd. Arkam vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 33 [CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2174 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 33
The Allahabad High Court granted bail to a UAPA Accused (Mohd. Arkam) who was arrested in September 2022 on the allegations of actively participating in strengthening the Popular Front of India (OFI) organization to establish 'Gazwa-e-Hind' in India.
The Bench of Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I granted him bail as it noted that the trial in the case is still pending and there is no likelihood of it being completed soon coupled with the fact that the appellant has no criminal history to his name and thus, Section 43-D of the UAP Act is not attracted.
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Case Title: Mirza Himayat Baig v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 2
The Bombay High Court granted bail to Mirza Himayat Baig arrested in 2010 for allegedly being a Lashkar – E - Taiba operative and participating in a terror conspiracy in Nashik.
Baig is already serving a life sentence in the German Bakery Blast Case.
A division bench headed by Justice Revati Mohite Dere granted bail to Baig on furnishing a personal bond of Rs 1 lakh with two sureties of the same amount.
Case Title: G.N. Saibaba v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 121
The Bombay High Court today that the trial of former Delhi University Professor GN Saibaba and others was held despite violation of mandatory provisions of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) pertaining to arrest, search and seizure, and sanction to prosecute.
A division bench of Justice Vinay Joshi and Justice Valmiki SA Menezes, while acquitting GN Saibaba and others in an alleged Maoist-links case, observed that the trial, held without mandatory compliance, amounts to a failure of justice.
“There is total non-compliance of various provisions of UAPA. The sanction accorded to prosecute Accused Nos.1 to 5 is invalid. Taking of cognizance by the Trial Court without valid sanction or no sanction to prosecute accused No.6 G.N. Saibaba goes to the root of the case, which renders the entire proceedings null and void. There is non-compliance of the provisions of Sections 43-A and 43-B of the UAPA pertaining to arrest, search and seizure. Statutory presumption under section 43- E of the UAPA would not apply for the offences charged. We hold that the trial held despite violation of mandatory provisions of law itself amounts to failure of justice.”
Case Title:Momin Moiuddin Gulam Hasan vs. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 359
The Bombay High Court has held that the investigating agency under the Unlawful Activitives Prevention Act (UAPA) cannot seek an extension in filing the chargesheet citing the lack of sanction.
A division bench of Justices Revati Mohite-Dere and Gauri Godse held that for filing a chargesheet, there is no requirement of a sanction from the competent authority and the same can be obtained subsequently. The judges further held that in such a scenario, an investigating agency cannot seek extension of time to file chargesheet on the ground that it has to obtain the mandatory sanction from the competent authority.
Case Title: Parvez Vaid vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom), 369
The Bombay High Court has held that the Central Government under its powers has declared underworld gangster Dawood Ibrahim Kaskar, a terrorist in his "individual capacity" and thus any association of any person with him or the D-Company, would not attract punishment for being member of a terrorist organisation under section 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).
A division bench of Justices Bharati Dangre and Manjusha Deshpande granted bail to two men booked for their alleged links with D-Company and for their involvement in a drugs seizure case.
Case Title: Sujith Kumar Rangaswami (Criminal Appeal 1268 of 2023)
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 409
The Bombay High Court recently granted bail to five men, alleged members of Hindu right-wing organisations - 'Sanatan Sanstha' and 'Hindu Janjagruti Samiti' arrested in 2018 for their alleged conspiracy to explode bombs at the then ongoing Sunburn festival in Pune district to terrorise the participants.
A division bench of Justices Bharati Dangre and Manjusha Deshpande while granting bail noted that though the allegation is that the five men - Sujit Rangaswami, Amit Baddi, Ganesh Miskin, Shrikant Pangarkar and Bharat Kurane, conspired to execute bomb blasts in the ongoing festival, yet the festival concluded successfully.
Case Title: Munib Iqbal Memon vs. State
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 484
The Bombay High Court on Friday granted bail to a 42-year-old tailor, booked for allegedly conspiring and executing the serial bomb blasts in Pune in August 2012 for taking revenge of the custodial death of a terrorist of the banned Indian Mujahideen outfit.
A division bench of Justices Revati Mohite-Dere and Sharmila Deshmukh noted that the appellant Munib Memon has been in custody for around 11 and a half years since his arrest in December 2012.
DELHI HIGH COURT
Title: MOHD ARIF ANSARI v. STATE OF GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 229
The Delhi High Court has observed that the intent of notifying a place under Section 8 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, is to ensure that it is not used for unlawful activities and is not to seize properties of innocent owners who are neither members of the unlawful association nor involved in unlawful activities.
Section 8 of the UAPA grants power to the Central Government to notify any place, which in its opinion, is used for unlawful association which has been declared unlawful under the enactment.
A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora made the observation while dealing with a plea challenging Central Government's notification notifying a property situated in city's Jamia Nagar area as being used for carrying out activities of Popular Front of India (PFI) and its associates.
Title: JAMSHEED ZAHOOR PAUL v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 492
The Delhi High Court has denied regular bail to a 25 year old Kashmiri man booked under Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, observing that he being a supporter of ideology of banned terrorist organization ISIS, arranged illegal weapons and was involved in providing other logistic support to its cadres.
A division bench comprising Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Manoj Jain dismissed the bail plea of Jamsheed Zahoor Paul who was arrested by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) in 2018.
Title: AMMAR ABDUL RAHIMAN v. NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 552
While granting bail to an accused in a UAPA case, the Delhi High Court has said that merely because his mobile was found carrying incriminating material like “photographs of terrorist Osama Bin Laden, Jihad Promotion and ISIS flags” and he was accessing lectures of “hard-liner or Muslim preachers” would not be enough to brand him as a member of a banned terrorist organization like ISIS.
A division bench headed by Justice Suresh Kumar Kait said that such type of incriminating material, in today's electronic era, is freely available on World Wide Web and merely accessing and downloading it would not be sufficient to hold that the accused had associated himself with ISIS.
Delhi High Court Denies Bail To Accused In NSCN (IM) Terror Funding Case
Case Title: Masasasong Ao Vs National Iinvestigation Agency
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 611
The Delhi High Court has upheld the denial of bail to Masasosang Ao, the second accused in the terror funding case related to Naga insurgent group National Socialist Council of Nagaland-Isak Muivah (NSCN (IM)).
The Court emphasized the seriousness of allegations levelled against Masasosang and underscored that the absence of a formal declaration labeling NSCN (IM) as a terrorist organization does not diminish the gravity of the charges.
Title: ABOOBACKER E. v. National Investigation Agency
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 645
The Delhi High Court has dismissed the plea moved by E Abubacker, former chairman of Popular Front of India (PFI), seeking bail in the UAPA case being probed by the National Investigation Agency.
A division bench comprising Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Manoj Jain dismissed the appeal moved by Abubacker who sought bail on the merits as well as medical grounds.
Delhi High Court Grants Statutory Bail To Sharjeel Imam In Sedition Case
Title: Sharjeel Imam v. State
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 648
The Delhi High Court has granted statutory bail to Sharjeel Imam in a UAPA and sedition case relating to the alleged inflammatory speeches made by him in Aligarh Muslim University and Jamia area in the national capital against the Citizenship Amendment Act.
A division bench comprising Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Manoj Jain allowed Imam's bail plea. He had challenged the trial court order denying him statutory bail in the case.
Title: MOHSIN IBRAHIM SAYYED v. NIA
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 701
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a plea moved by a convict seeking concurrent running of his jail terms in two UAPA cases, observing that the offences committed by him did not form part of the same transaction.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma dismissed the plea moved by Mohsin Ibrahim Sayyed who was convicted by NIA courts in Greater Bombay and the national capital. He was awarded eight and seven years of rigorous imprisonment respectively.
Case title: Abdul Wahid Alias Saddam vs. National Investigation Agency
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 888
The Delhi High Court has denied bail to an accused who has been in jail for two years, considering the seriousness of the UAPA charges related to circulating fake Indian currency.
The Court stated that the circulation of fake currency severely threatens national economic security and asserted that bail cannot be granted if the allegations against the accused are prima facie true.
A division bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Amit Sharma were considering the appeal against order of the Trial Court rejecting the bail of the appellant/accused under the UAPA.
Delhi High Court Denies Interim Bail To PFI Chairman Under UAPA, Says Accused Yields Wide Influence
Case title: O.M.A. Salam vs. National Investigation Agency (CRL.A. 564/2024)
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 965
The Delhi High Court has denied interim bail to the Chairman of the Popular Front of India (PFI), charged under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, who sought bail to meet his wife suffering from mental health disorder due to their daughter's death.
A Division Bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Amit Sharma were considering the appeal of O.M.A. Salam, PFI Chairman (appellant-accused), against the rejection of interim bail by the Special Judge, New Delhi.
Delhi High Court Denies Bail To British National Jagtar Singh Johal In Murder, UAPA Cases
Title: JAGTAR SINGH JOHAL @ JAGGI v. NIA and other connected matters
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1034
The Delhi High Court has denied bail to British national Jagtar Singh Johal in seven murder and UAPA cases being probed by the National Investigation Agency (NIA).
A division bench comprising Justice Prathiba M Singh and Justice Amit Sharma dismissed the bail appeals filed by Johal in the UAPA cases alleging series of targeted killings during 2016-2017 in Ludhiana and Jalandhar Districts of Punjab.
It was NIA's case that the incidents in which Johal and other accused were involved were specifically for creating a law and order situation in Punjab. It further alleged that the accused persons were part of a conspiracy hatched by the Khalistan Liberation Force (KLF) of which Johal is also a member.
Title: THOKCHOM SHYAMJAI SINGH & ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH HOME SECRETARY & ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1087
The Delhi High Court has rejected the preliminary objection raised by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) regarding the maintainability of the petition filed by self-styled Army Chief of the United National Liberation Front (UNLF) and his two associates challenging their arrest in a UAPA case.
Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani said that the petition is maintainable and entertained the same for arguments on merits of the case.
Case title: Visuvanathan Rudrakumaran vs. The Union Of India & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1185
The Delhi High Court has dismissed the petition of Visuvanathan Rudrakumaran, who claimed to be the Prime Minister of the Transnational Government of Tamil Eelam (TGTE), for impleadment in UAPA Tribunal proceedings concerning the declaration of Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) as unlawful association.
A Division Bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Amit Sharma observed that the impact of allowing the impleadment could have far reaching implications on policy issues and relations with other nations. The Court remarked that judicial review has to be exercised with utmost caution in cases concerning the security and integrity of the country.
Title: HINA BASHIR BEIGH v. NIA and other connected matter
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1251
The Delhi High Court has ruled that factors such as misuse of social media platforms by terrorists and using journalistic credentials for publishing magazines to incite violence are factors which cannot be ignored while awarding sentence in terrorist activities related cases.
A division bench comprising Justice Prathiba M Singh and Justice Amit Sharma observed that Courts will have to not merely bear in mind the crime committed in such cases but also its impact and propensity of the person to indulge in a similar crime in future.
Case title: Mohd Abdul Rehman vs. State NCT of Delhi
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1391
While hearing an appeal against the conviction of a member of Al-Qaida in Indian Subcontinent (AQIS) under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), the Delhi High Court has observed that contemplation of a terrorist act for years even if it may be carried out to after several years constitutes a terrorist act.
A division bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Amit Sharma stated “The definition of 'Terrorist act' under Section 15 of UAPA clearly includes the expressions “with intent to strike terror”, by any other means of whatever nature to cause or likely to cause. Such an expression would not be linked only to an immediate Terrorist act but the same would even include acts, which could be under contemplation for years together and may be given effect to after several years.”
Title: STATE v. ANAMUL ANSARI & ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1358
The Delhi High Court has held that an order rejecting the application for extension of period of investigation from initial 90 to 180 days under Section 43D(2) of UAPA is an appealable order and not an interlocutory order.
A division bench comprising of Justice Prathiba M Singh and Justice Amit Sharma said that the finality attached to such an order would be that the prosecution may be unable to again obtain custody of the accused, especially, in a case involving serious offences including under the UAPA.
JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT
Case Title: Baseerat-ul-Ain Vs NIA
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 55
Granting bail to a woman accused of harbouring a terrorist the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has observed that framing charges under stringent anti-terror laws is not enough to deny bail if the accused presents a case for release.
In allowing her plea for bail a Division bench comprising Justices Tashi Rabstan & Puneet Gupta observed,
“The framing of charge against the accused under Section 18 & 19 of the Act by itself shall not be sufficient to reject the bail to the appellant if, prima facie, the Court is of the view that the accused has otherwise made out a case for grant of bail”.
Case Title - Khursheed Ahmad Lone v. Union Territory
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 140
Justice Atul Sreedharan of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court cautioned against being unduly influenced by forceful submissions regarding internal security in the absence of judicially cognizable material against the accused.
JHARKHAND HIGH COURT
Case Title: Kunwar Ganjhu v Union of India
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 12
The Jharkhand High Court recently dismissed an appeal filed against the rejection of bail by the Special Court to a UAPA accused allegedly connected to the banned terrorist organization CPI(Maoist).
A division bench of Justices Sujit Narayan Prasad and Pradeep Kumar Srivastava observed, “The facts disclosed by the appellant were duly corroborated during course of investigation by way of statement of witnesses and thereby, prima facie the allegation as made against the accused/ petitioner appears to be true.”
“Thus, from perusal of the various annexures and paragraphs of the charge sheet, prima facie appears that the appellant (A-3) has associated himself with terrorist organisation CPI (Maoist) knowingly and aided the said organisation voluntarily and further he has provided logistics support to terrorist organisation CPI (Moiist), took part in meeting with its cadres and has collected or received funds from Sonu Singh (A-5) and others for terrorist organization CPI (Maoist) knowing that such funds would be used for terrorism,” the division bench added.
The Jharkhand High Court has held that merely alleging membership in a terrorist gang and association with its leadership, without providing specific instances of involvement in criminal activities, would not be enough to substantiate such claims.
Thus granting bail to the appellant charged under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA), the court ruled that vague and generalized accusations would not suffice to withhold liberty.
The division bench comprising Justice Rongon Mukhopadhyay and Justice Deepak Roshan observed,
“The allegations itself are vague and generalized. The involvement of the appellant in terrorist activities has to be founded upon specific evidence. Merely, alleging that the appellant is a member of a terrorist gang closely associated with the top brass of such gang and his involvement in various nefarious activities without specifying instances would not cement such allegations into a concrete form.”
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Case Title: Mazin Abdul Rahman
Case No: Criminal Appeal No 2248 of 2023.
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 97
The Karnataka High Court while dismissing an appeal by an accused charged under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, said “Article 21 cannot be stretched too long to afford protection to persons who have least concern for rule of law and pose threat to sovereignty and integrity of the nation.”
A division bench of Justices Sreenivas Harish Kumar and Vijaykumar A Patil dismissed the appeal filed by accused Mazin Abdul Rahman who is charged with sections 120B, 121, 121A of IPC and sections 18, 20 and 38 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, for being associated with banned terrorist outfit Islamic State (IS), challenging the order of the special court refusing bail to him.
PREVENTIVE DETENTION
Case Title: Nandini AND The DG & IGP of Police, Bengaluru & Others
Case No: WPHC NO.55 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 318
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a petition filed by the wife of a detenu questioning his detention under the Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Gamblers, Goondas (Immoral Traffic Offencers, Slum-Grabbers and Video or Audio Pirates) Act, 1985.
A division bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit and Justice Ramachandra D Huddar noted that the man is involved in 45 criminal cases registered at different police stations. It said, “The criminal antecedents of detenue galore on record and they lend credence to the contention of learned SPP that his detention is inevitably ordered after exploring all alternatives.”
KERALA HIGH COURT
Case Title: Ashraf @ Asharaf Moulavi v Union of India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 386
The Kerala High Court today held that while considering allegations of terrorism and related offences under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, the Courts should not get carried away by confirmation bias that might creep in based on ideological biases and false narratives prevalent in the society.
The Court was considering the criminal appeals moved by 26 persons belonging to Popular Front Of India (PFI) who were accused of allegedly murdering RSS Leader Srinivasan at Melamuri Junction in Palakkad Town in Kerala on April 16, 2022.
Case Title: Saheer E.P. v National Investigating Agency
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 459
Kerala High Court held that the direction of the Supreme Court in Prabir Purkayastha v State (NCT of Delhi) (2024) which held that for an arrest under UAPA to be valid the arrestee should be furnished with grounds of arrest in writing, would only need to be applied prospectively.
It was held that arrests made before the date of judgment cannot be considered invalid for the reason that the arrestee was not informed of the grounds of arrest in writing.
Case Title: Jaleel P v Union of India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 576
The Kerala High Court has granted bail to one Shihab P, an alleged member of the Popular Front of India, accused for murder of RSS leader Sreenivasan at Melamuri Junction in Palakkad Town in Kerala on April 16, 2022.
The Division Bench comprising Justice A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. found no reasonable ground to believe that the accusations made against him are prima facie true. It thus held he is entitled to bail under Section 43 (D) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.
Case Title: Rajesh Madhavan v Union of India and Connected Matters
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 593
The Kerala High Court has acquitted five persons (A1- Rajesh Madhavan, A2-Gopal, A3-Devarajan, A4-Bahuleyan, A5-Ajayakumar @ Ajayan @ Mannoor Ajayan) who were convicted by the Special Court for NIA Cases, Ernakulam as accused in the Mavelikara Maoist case.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V and Justice G Girish held that the prosecution has failed to establish that RDF is a frontal organization of CPI (Maoist). The Court also stated that RDF is not declared as an unlawful organization or as a terrorist organization under the UAPA.
Case Title: Riyas A @ Riyas Aboobakkar @ Abu Dujana v Union of India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 790
The Kerala High Court has upheld the conviction imposed upon Riyas Aboobakkar by the Special Court constituted under the NIA Act. His conviction under Sections 38 (offence relating to membership of a terrorist organisation) and 39 ( offence relating to support given to a terrorist organisation) of the UAPA, read with Section 120B of the IPC was upheld by the High Court.
The Division Bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V and Justice Jobin Sebastian found that Riyas Aboobakkar propagated ISIS ideology and advocated war against non-Muslims. The Court modified the punishment imposed upon the appellant and reduced his imprisonment to 8 years of Rigorous Imprisonment instead of 10 years of Rigorous Imprisonment under Sections 38 and 39 of the UAPA, by considering various factors.
MADRAS HIGH COURT
UAPA
Case Title: M/s.Tamil Nadu Development Foundation Trust v. The Assistant Commissioner of Police
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 141
The Madras High Court recently set aside an order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Vepery Range and ordered de-freezing the bank account of Tamil Nadu Development Foundation Trust after finding that the trust's account was frozen under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act without conducting proper inquiry.
The bench of Justice MS Ramesh and Justice Sunder Mohan observed that as per Section 7(1) of the UAPA while passing a prohibitory order, an inquiry had to be conducted. The court noted that in the present case, no such inquiry had been conducted. Thus, the court found the order violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
Case Title: Ahmed Mansoor and Others v The State and Another
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 395
The Madras High Court recently observed that the requirements under Section 43B of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act is met when the remand requisition report, containing the grounds of arrest is served on the accused.
As per Section 43B of the UAPA, any officer arresting a person under Section 43A shall, as soon as may be, inform him of the grounds for such arrest.
A remand requisition report is a document prepared by the investigating agency seeking remand of the arrested persons under Section 167 before the Magistrate. It contains the grounds of arrest and copy of the police diary entries.
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice V Sivagnanam held that when the grounds of arrest were made available in the remand requisition report which was served to the accused before arrest in the presence of his lawyer, the fundamental rights under Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 43B of the UAPA were complied with.
TN PREVENTIVE DETENTION ACT
Case Title: Ganeshkumar v The Principal Secretary to Government
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 1
The Madras High Court recently issued a compendium of procedures to be followed by the Advisory Board under the Tamil Nadu Preventive Detention Act 1982, while conducting an inquiry under sub-clause (a) of Clause (4) of Article 22 of the Constitution.
The bench of Justice R Suresh Kumar and Justice KK Ramakrishnan made it clear that the compendium was to be strictly followed by the State Advisory Board till the State came up with a law within Article 22(7)(c) of the Constitution. Article 22(7)(c) empowers the Parliament to prescribe laws to be followed by the advisory board while considering the detention of a person.
Case Title: K Nagomi v The Additional Chief Secretary to Government and Ors
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 127
While setting aside the detention of a man under the Tamil Nadu Preventive Detention Act 14 of 1982, the Madras High Court expressed its discontentment with the manner in which the State was callously misusing detention orders.
The bench of Justice MS Ramesh and Justice Sunder Mohan however refrained from passing deterrent orders against the State and hoped that the State would mend its approach and refrain from carelessly passing detention orders in the future.
Case Title: Tmt. Sabeena Beevi v The Joint Secretary to Government of India and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 252
The Madras High Court recently observed that detaining authority was expected to show sensitivity while dealing with representations relating to preventive detention. The court added that when there was unexplained delay on the part of the detaining authority in forwarding representations to the sponsoring authority, the least safeguards guaranteed by the constitution were denied to the detenu.
The bench of Justice AD Jagadish Chandira and Justice K Rajasekar noted that since preventive detention was a serious encroachment of one's personal liberty, it was necessary to ensure certain minimum safeguards for the protection of the person sought to be preventively detained.
Case Title: A Kamala v State and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 306
The Madras High Court on Friday set aside the detention of Youtuber Savukku Shankar under the Tamil Nadu Preventive Detention Act.
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice V Sivagnanam ordered Shankar to be released forthwith if he was not required in any other case. The court observed that the detention order passed by the State was not compliant with the essential requirements for invoking the Preventive Detention Act.
The court noted that there was an element of malice in the action taken by the State. The court observed that the State had moved with a prejudicial view in light of the publications made by Shankar against the Government and its officials.
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
UAPA | Punjab &Haryana High Court Grants Bail To Man Booked For Writing Secessionist SlogansOn School Wall
Title: Resham v. State of Haryana
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 113
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has granted bail to a man booked under the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) for allegedly writing secessionist slogans on the wall of a School. While granting bail, to the accused a division bench of Justice Anupinder Singh Grewal and Justice Kirti Singh noted, "in the instant case, no recovery whatsoever has been made from him as yet. No material has been brought before this Court to indicate that any monetary transactions had taken place and that the appellant had used a particular mobile phone for recording the incident and sending it to other accused."
[UAPA] Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Bail To Woman Booked For Harbouring Man Allegedly Conspiring To Set Up Separate State
Title: MANJIT KAUR v. NIA
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 133
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has granted bail to a 58-year-old woman booked under the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) allegedly for harbouring a man accused of hatching a criminal conspiracy to set up a separate state in 2019. A division bench of Justice Anupinder Singh Grewal and Justice Kirti Singh noted that the woman "had helped the co-accused Kulwinderjit Singh @ Khanpuria flee the country and had facilitated his stay at Cambodia. These allegations of harbouring the co- accused Kulwinderjit Singh @ Khanpuria pertain to the period from January 2019 to March 2019. It is true that Kulwinderjit Singh @ Khanpuria had been arraigned as an accused in the cases prior to this period but he had not been declared as a proclaimed offender at that time."
4 Yrs Is Sufficient Period To Snap Links: P&H HC Grants Bail To Men Booked Under UAPA, NDPS For Transferring Funds To Terror Outfit 'Hizb-Ul-Mujahideen
Title: Bikram Singh @ Bikramjit Singh @ Vicky v. National Investigation Agency
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 257
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has granted bail to four men accused under the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) and Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) for entering into a criminal conspiracy to smuggle and to do trading of heroin in India, in order to transfer the proceeds to the terrorist organization namely Hizb-ul-Mujahideen. The Court found that "prima facie" offences under UAPA are not made out, except against one accused and identical twin stringent conditions of bail are prescribed under both UAPA and NDPS, with the slight difference that under UAPA findings qua possibility of involvement of accused in similar offence while on bail, is not required to be recorded.
No Legal Provision To Grant Interim Bail To Accused Under UAPA: Punjab & Haryana High Court
BALJIT SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 225
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."
UAPA | P&H HC Releases Man Arrested In 2020 For 'Anti-National Activities' For Possessing Phone Containing 'Objectionable' Pictures Of Weapons
Title: RAJ KUMAR @ LOVEPREET @ LOVELY v. STATE OF PUNJAB
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 237
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has granted bail to a man who was arrested in 2020 for allegedly being involved in "anti-national" activities under the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) in 2020. Justice Anupinder Singh Grewal and Justice Lapita Banerji noted that "only a mobile phone is alleged to have recovered from him which is stated to have contained objectionable photographs of arms and ammunition etc. There is no other recovery either of firearms or any other incriminating material at this stage. The appellant is in custody for over 3 years and 8 months."
UAPA | Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Bail To Man Accused Of Indulging In 'Anti-National Activities' With Pakistani National
RAMEEZ RAJA v. STATE OF PUNJAB
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 366
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has granted bail to a man accused under stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) for allegedly being in touch with a Pakistani national and arranging money for "anti-national activities."
The Court noted that no no recovery of arms and ammunition or any other incriminating material has been effected from him and in custody for about 2 years.
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Title - Lovepreet Singh and Another vs. State of Rajasthan [S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 1510/2024]
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 86
The Rajasthan High Court granted bail to two alleged operatives of Sikhs for Justice (SFJ) accused of writing “Khalistan Zindabad” slogan on a wall in a public place in the state's Hanumangarh area.
Importantly, the Court observed that it was "not comprehensible" as to how the penal provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act have been invoked against the accused persons. The Court also added that no overwhelming circumstances were available to draw a presumption regarding the guilt of the accused.
With this, a bench of Justice Farjand Ali granted relief to the accused [Lovepreet Singh and Harmanpreet Singh] while noting that there is a high probability that the trial may take a long time to conclude and that further incarceration of the accused petitioners isn't necessary.
TELANGANA HIGH COURT
The State of Telangana vs. Kuram Venkatesh Yerra Venkatesh
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Tel) 56
The Telangana High Court has held that Section 18 of the Unlawful Activities Prevention (UAPA) Act is only penal in nature, and needs to be proved by the prosecution. In doing so, the Court granted bail to 9 trained cadre/members of the Popular Front of India (PFI).
“Section - 18A deals with 'punishment for organizing of terrorist camps', Section - 18B deals with punishment for recruiting of any person or persons for terrorist act' which says that whoever recruits or causes to be recruited any person or persons for commission of a terrorist act etc. are liable for punishment. It is only a penal provision. Ultimately it has to be proved by NIA by producing evidence," it said.
