UAPA | Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Bail To Man Accused Of Indulging In 'Anti-National Activities' With Pakistani National

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.

Justice Anupinder Singh Grewal and Justice Lapita Banerji 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. It has been held by the Supreme Court in a catena of judgments that long custody by itself would entitle the accused under UAPA to the grant of bail by invoking Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Constitutional Court would like to prevent a situation where the lengthy and arduous process of trial, becomes a punishment in itself."

These observations were made while hearing the bail plea of Rameez Raja who was booked under Section 25 of Arms Act, 1959 & Sections 3, 4 , 5 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and 13, 17, 18, 18-B, 20 of the UAPA.

It was alleged that Raja was in touch with the co-accused and a Pakistani national through Conion Application. He was alleged to be involved in several anti-national activities including arrangement of financial aid.

Counsel for Raja argued that no recovery of any arm and ammunition or any other incriminating material has been effected from him. The allegations pertaining to the aforenoted electronic evidence are unsubstantiated and no such evidence in the form of transcripts were produced on record.

He also pointed that sanction under Section 45 of the UAPA had not been obtained qua the appellant.

After hearing the submissions, the Court referred to Union of India versus K.A. Najeeb wherein the Apex Court 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.

It has also been 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.

Reliance was placed on a recent case of Shoma Kanti Sen Vs. State of Maharashtra, wherein the Court granted bail to former Nagpur University professor Shoma Sen who is booked under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act 1967 (UAPA) for alleged Maoist links in connection with the Bhima Koregaon case. 

The Court also referred to Vernon versus The State of Maharashtra and another to underscore that serious allegations against accused by itself cannot be a reason to deny bail to the accused.

While referring to catena of judgements of the Supreme Court, the Court noted that no recovery of arms and ammunition or any other incriminating material has been effected from him, he is in custody for about 2 years, co-accused Amir Hussain Wani and Waseem Hussain Wani have been granted regular bail and the end of the trial is not in sight as only two out of seven prosecution witnesses have been examined.

In the light of the above, the Court allowed the plea and imposed certain conditions on him/

 M.S. Basra, Advocate for the applicant/appellant.

H.S. Sullar, Senior DAG, Punjab.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 366

Click here to read/download the order