UAPA | 'Watali' Judgment Not A Precedent to Deny Bail To Undertrial In Long Custody With No End In Sight Of Trial: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court while granting bail to a man accused under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) observed that the judgement in the case of NIA v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali cannot be cited as a precedent to deny bail in UAPA cases where the accused has suffered long incarceration.
The court noted that in Watali case, the bail granted by the High Court was set aside due to the specific facts of the case wherein the High Court conducted a mini trial to overturn the trial court's prima facie findings against grant of bail.
In the present case, the Supreme Court, taking note of the nine years period of undertrial custody and the slow-pace of trial, chose of grant bail to the accused, following the precedent in K.A Najeeb case.
A bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan set aside the order of the Allahabad High Court which had denied bail to teh appellant.
“We are in respectful agreement with the reasoning given in K.A. Najeeb (supra) regarding the decision in Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali (supra). This decision i.e. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali (supra) has to be read and understood in the context in which it was rendered and not as a precedent to deny bail to an accused undertrial suffering long incarceration with no end in sight of the criminal trial”, the court held.
The court relied the case of Union of India v. KA Najeeb, which emphasized that statutory restrictions on bail under the UAPA should not override constitutional rights. The Court highlighted that while the seriousness of the charges is a pertinent consideration, an undertrial's long detention and the unlikelihood of a timely trial completion are valid grounds for granting bail.
The court agreed with the view of the three-judge bench in KA Najeeb on the judgement in Watali case. In the KA Najeeb judgment, the three-judge bench had distinguished the Watali judgment noting that in that case, the bail was cancelled only because the High Court while granting bail virtually conducted a mini trial and determined admissibility of certain evidence which exceeded the limited scope of a bail proceeding. The court in Watali case had cancelled bail observing the High Court went beyond the statutory mandate of prima-facie assessment under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA, which could have prejudiced the trial.
Also from the judgment- UAPA | Wrong To Say Bail Cannot Be Granted Under A Particular Statute : Supreme Court Distinguishes 'Gurwinder Singh' Judgment
Case no. – Criminal Appeal No. 2790 of 2024
Case Title – Sheikh Javed Iqbal @ Ashfaq Ansari @ Javed Ansari v. State of Uttar Pradesh
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 486