'Sufficient Material Shown To Convict Appellant': Madhya Pradesh High Court Denies Bail To Man Convicted For Offences Under UAPA And Explosives Act

The division bench of Chief Justice Ravi Malimath and Justice Dinesh Kumar Paliwal was dealing with an application U/S 389 CRPC for suspension of sentence and grant of bail, filed by the Appellant convicted by the trial court U/S 16(B), 18 UAPA, and U/S 6 Explosive Substances Act.

The Appellant submitted that the trial court had committed an error in convicting and sentencing him to imprisonment for life. He argued that the question of him being considered as a terrorist, as defined under UAPA, did not arise for consideration at all. He asserted that the Rule itself had come into being in the year 2019, whereas the offence was said to have been committed in the year 2013. Hence, he contended that the said Act itself was not applicable in his case. He further submitted that on merit, there was no material to convict him for offence U/S 6 of Explosives Substances Act. Therefore, he pleaded before the Court that he be enlarged on bail.

Examining the arguments of the Appellant, the Court held that his contentions with respect to the Applicability of UAPA and conviction U/S 6 Explosive Substances Act would have to be considered at a later stage-

The contention of the appellant with regard to the applicability of the Act, in our considered view, requires to be considered at the stage of final hearing. However, so far as the instant application is concerned, even if the contention of the appellant is considered, he has still been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 6 of the Explosive Substances Act. So far as Section 6 of the Explosive Substances Act is concerned, learned counsel for the applicant contended that on merit there is no material to convict the applicant for the said offence.

The Court further opined-

However, considering the reasons assigned as well as the findings recorded by the trial Court, sufficient material is shown to convict the appellant under Section 6 of the Explosive Substances Act. However, these are all matters to be considered at the stage of final hearing. Presently even if the contention of the appellant to be accepted regarding the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act is concerned, we do not find any material to enlarge the appellant on bail.

With the aforesaid observations, the Court refused to allow the application and accordingly, dismissed the same.