'Allegations Not Prima Facie Correct, Long Pre-Trial Custody' : Supreme Court Grants Bail To UAPA Accused In Case Over PFI-Links
Yash Mittal
18 Dec 2024 10:36 AM IST
On Tuesday (Dec. 17), the Supreme Court granted bail to an accused booked for alleged involvement with the Popular Front of India (“PFI”) in causing disturbance during the Prime Minister's proposed visit to Patna in 2022.
The Court reiterated that prolonged incarceration of the accused in draconian statutes like the Unlawful Assemblies (Prevention) Act, 1967 (“UAPA”) would make him eligible for a grant of bail despite the rigours of Section 43-D (5) of the UAPA.
The Court also observed that there were no materials indicating that the allegations were prima facie correct, which would attract the UAPA.
The bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and AG Masih heard the bail application filed by one Athar Parwez against the Patna High Court's decision denying bail to him on the allegation of involving in terrorist activities to cause disturbances in PM's Patna visit in 2022.
It was also alleged that upon a search conducted in the premises where the accused conducted the PFI's activities, various documents including a document titled “India 2047 towards the rule of Islam in India” which contained various recitals relatable to an Islamic rule which is to be established in India were found.
The National Investigation Agency (“NIA”) filed a charge sheet against the accused under Sections 121, 121A, 122, 153A & 153B of the IPC and Sections 13, 17, 18, 18A, 18B & 20 of UAPA, 1967; however, the charges have not been framed yet.
Before the Supreme Court, the appellant-accused contended that the recovery of the document was questionable, as it came from premises (second floor) not in possession of the appellant, contrary to the prosecution's reliance on a rent deed indicating the appellant was rented only the first floor.
Further, the appellant-accused relied on the testimonies of protected witnesses who failed to establish the appellant's active role in illegal activities.
"The chargesheet and the statement of witness 'Z' when seen as it is, it would not be possible to record prima facie finding that commission of offence under the UAPA, 1967 would be attracted as there are no reasonable grounds for believing that the accusations are prima facie correct," the Court observed,
Setting aside the High Court's decision, the judgment authored by Justice Masih affirming the contention made by the accused also flagged the delay in completing the trial and the long incarceration suffered by the accused being inextricably linked to Article 21 of the Constitution.
“The Appellant was arrested on 12.07.2022. He has undergone custody for more than two years and four months. Charge sheet was filed on 07.01.2023 but till date charges have not been framed which is an admitted position. There are 40 accused and 354 witnesses cited by the prosecution to be examined. There can be no doubt that the trial is not likely to complete soon, and as has been laid down by various judgments of this Court as has been referred to above, the Appellant cannot be allowed to languish in jail indefinitely and that too without a trial. If such an approach is allowed Article 21 of the Constitution of India would stand violated.”, the court observed.
Also, the Court gave benefit to the accused on the ground parity with the co-accused who was also granted bail in the same by the Court in August this year.
“The co-accused of the Appellant, Md. Jalaluddin has on similar grounds been granted the same benefit.”, the court said.
“Reference can also be made to the judgments of this Court in Thwaha Fasal v. Union of India as also Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra and Anr. where again, the Court was dealing with the provisions of UAPA, 1967 and had reiterated the abovesaid principles. Giving precedence to the protection of Fundamental Rights and emphasising upon their primacy over the statutory provisions in case of delayed trial. In the above judgments, this Court had even gone to the extent of asserting that the seriousness of the crime for which the accused is facing the trial would not be material as an accused is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty.”, the court added.
Accordingly, the appeal was allowed.
Appearance:
For Petitioner(s) Dr. Aditya Sondhi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Divyesh Pratap Singh, Adv. Mr. Adil Sharfuddin, Adv. Mr. Shashank Singh, AOR Mr. Akash Alex, Adv. Ms. Aishwarya Sm, Adv. Ms. Meghana Tm, Adv. Mr. Anubhav Kumar, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, A.S.G. Ms. Poornima Singh,Adv. Ms. Shagun Thakur,Adv. Mr. Vasu Vats,Adv. Ms. Shivika Mehra, Adv. Ms. Bani Dikshit, Adv. Ms. Seema Bengani, Adv. Mr. Parantap Singh, Adv. Ms. Rajeshwari Shankar, Adv. Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR
Case Title: ATHAR PARWEZ Versus UNION OF INDIA
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1006
Click here to read/download the judgment
Related Reports: 'Bail Is The Rule, Jail Is The Exception' Even In Special Statutes Like UAPA : Supreme Court
