Supreme Court Grants Bail To UAPA Accused Under Custody For Over 4 Years, Says Trial Unlikely To Conclude Soon
LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK
2 Sep 2024 4:49 AM GMT
![Supreme Court Ruling | Sessions Court Has Jurisdiction for UAPA Cases under NIA Act in Absence of States Special Court Supreme Court Ruling | Sessions Court Has Jurisdiction for UAPA Cases under NIA Act in Absence of States Special Court](https://www.livelaw.in/h-upload/2024/04/19/750x450_534695-uapa-and-sc.webp)
The Supreme Court recently granted bail to a person charged under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act over alleged links with Naxalites in Chhattisgarh, taking into account the fact that he has been under custody since May 6, 2020, and the early conclusion of trial was unlikely.
The bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra also noted that 12 out of the 14 co-accused have been granted bail.
The Court was considering a petition filed by one Mukesh Salam who has been charged under offences under Sections 10, 13, 17, 38(1)(2), 40, 22-A & 22-C of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967 ; Section 8(2)(3)(5) of the Chhattisgarh Vishesh Jan Surksha Adhiniyam, 2005 ; and Sections 120B, 201 & 149/34 of the IPC. He appealed to the Supreme Court after the Chhattisgarh High Court denied him bail.
The prosecution alleged that Mukesh Salam was the paternal uncle of Naxalite Commander Raju Salam and was in direct and constant touch with Raju Salam, supplying him with materials.
The Supreme Court noted that as of date only 40 witnesses of the 100 witnesses cited by the prosecution have been examined.
"Bearing in mind the above circumstances and the nature of the alleged case, we are of the considered view that the continued detention of the petitioner would not subserve the ends of justice. There is no likelihood of the early conclusion of the trial. The petitioner is in custody since 6 May 2020. We accordingly order and direct that the petitioner be released on bail, subject to such terms and conditions as may be imposed by the Special Judge (NIA Act), Kanker, in connection with FIR No 9 of 2020," the Court observed.
Case : Mukesh Salam v State of Chhattisgarh
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 641