NEW DELHI: In an important decision, Supreme Court Tuesday stated that the conventional idea ‘guarantee that is rules, jail is an exception‘ should be applied not only to IPC offenses but also to other persons for whom special statutes like the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act have been enforced if the conditions prescribed under the law have been fulfilled.
While granting bail to a former Bihar Police constable charged under the stringent UAPA for his alleged links with the banned Islamic outfit Popular Front of India (PFI), a bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Augustine George Masih insisted that the court should. do not hesitate to grant bail in serious offenses if a case is made for bail.
Recently, the apex court, through various judgments, has diluted the strict provisions for bail under special laws, as it did in Manish Sisodia’s case when it said that delays in court and long jail terms can be grounds for bail despite tests a difficult triple. PMLA anti-money laundering law.
Interestingly, just six months ago on February 9, another SC bench had said that ‘bail is the rule, jail is the exception’ does not apply when an accused faces charges under the UAPA anti-terror law and, also, stayed the pending trial . Proceedings in serious offenses cannot be a reason to request bail.
In Tuesday’s case, the court noted that the accused has been detained for more than two years and the trial has not yet started. He said the trial court and the Patna high court erred in rejecting the bail plea as they did not analyze the evidence objectively and the main focus was on the activities of the PFI to which the accused were related.
“When a case is made to grant bail, the court should not hesitate to grant bail. The charges of the prosecution may be very serious. But it is the duty of the court to consider the case to grant bail in accordance with the law. ‘Bail is the rule and jail is the exception’ is the law which has been determined. Even in cases like the present where there is a strict requirement to grant bail in the relevant statute, the same rule holds good with the only modification that bail can be granted if the condition in the statute is fulfilled. The rule also means that a case is made for grant bail, the court cannot refuse to grant bail. If the court starts denying bail in deserving cases, it will violate the rights guaranteed under Article 21 of our Constitution,” the bench said.
On Feb. 9, the court ruled otherwise. “The conventional idea in the jurisprudence of bail vis-a-vis ordinary criminal offenses that the discretion of the court should lean in favor of the often-quoted words ‘bail is the rule, jail is the exception’, unless the circumstances justify its use, do not find anywhere when dealing with application of bail in the UAPA. The ‘exercise’ of the general power to grant bail under the UAPA is indeed limited in scope. The wording used in the proviso to Section 43D (5) — is different from the wording as found in Section 437( 1) CrPC — ‘bailable’ — indicates the intention of the legislature to create bail except and jail rules,” the court said.
In the Patna case, the prosecution alleged that the accused was associated with PFI and that he let out one floor of his house to members of the outfit to carry out illegal activities. It is also alleged that he was part of the meeting where PFI members discussed the plan to kill BJP’s Nupur Sharma for her statement about Prophet Muhammad. But the court said that the evidence and statements of witnesses false allegations that were in the meeting.
The court said that there is nothing in the charge sheet to show that the accused has engaged in or engaged in any illegal activity as defined in the UAPA and there is no specific material to show that he advocated, encouraged or proposed any illegal activity.
Analyzing the evidence and statements of threadbare witnesses, the bench said in a plain reading of the chargesheet, it is not possible to record the conclusion that there is sufficient reason to believe that the charges against the accused of the commission of punishable offenses in the UAPA were prima facie. correct.
“There is no allegation in the charge sheet that the appellant is a member of a terrorist gang. Regarding the second part of being a member of a terrorist organization, under Section 2(m), a terrorist organization means an organization listed in the first schedule or an organization operating under the same name as that organization. The charge sheet does not mention the name of any terrorist organization within the meaning of Section 2(m) of which the accused is a member. We find that PFI is not a terrorist organisation, as is evident from the first schedule,” he said. PFI and its affiliates are called “unlawful associations” in the UAPA and banned by the government in September 2022. The first schedule of the UAPA lists terrorist organizations.
While granting bail to a former Bihar Police constable charged under the stringent UAPA for his alleged links with the banned Islamic outfit Popular Front of India (PFI), a bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Augustine George Masih insisted that the court should. do not hesitate to grant bail in serious offenses if a case is made for bail.
Recently, the apex court, through various judgments, has diluted the strict provisions for bail under special laws, as it did in Manish Sisodia’s case when it said that delays in court and long jail terms can be grounds for bail despite tests a difficult triple. PMLA anti-money laundering law.
Interestingly, just six months ago on February 9, another SC bench had said that ‘bail is the rule, jail is the exception’ does not apply when an accused faces charges under the UAPA anti-terror law and, also, stayed the pending trial . Proceedings in serious offenses cannot be a reason to request bail.
In Tuesday’s case, the court noted that the accused has been detained for more than two years and the trial has not yet started. He said the trial court and the Patna high court erred in rejecting the bail plea as they did not analyze the evidence objectively and the main focus was on the activities of the PFI to which the accused were related.
“When a case is made to grant bail, the court should not hesitate to grant bail. The charges of the prosecution may be very serious. But it is the duty of the court to consider the case to grant bail in accordance with the law. ‘Bail is the rule and jail is the exception’ is the law which has been determined. Even in cases like the present where there is a strict requirement to grant bail in the relevant statute, the same rule holds good with the only modification that bail can be granted if the condition in the statute is fulfilled. The rule also means that a case is made for grant bail, the court cannot refuse to grant bail. If the court starts denying bail in deserving cases, it will violate the rights guaranteed under Article 21 of our Constitution,” the bench said.
On Feb. 9, the court ruled otherwise. “The conventional idea in the jurisprudence of bail vis-a-vis ordinary criminal offenses that the discretion of the court should lean in favor of the often-quoted words ‘bail is the rule, jail is the exception’, unless the circumstances justify its use, do not find anywhere when dealing with application of bail in the UAPA. The ‘exercise’ of the general power to grant bail under the UAPA is indeed limited in scope. The wording used in the proviso to Section 43D (5) — is different from the wording as found in Section 437( 1) CrPC — ‘bailable’ — indicates the intention of the legislature to create bail except and jail rules,” the court said.
In the Patna case, the prosecution alleged that the accused was associated with PFI and that he let out one floor of his house to members of the outfit to carry out illegal activities. It is also alleged that he was part of the meeting where PFI members discussed the plan to kill BJP’s Nupur Sharma for her statement about Prophet Muhammad. But the court said that the evidence and statements of witnesses false allegations that were in the meeting.
The court said that there is nothing in the charge sheet to show that the accused has engaged in or engaged in any illegal activity as defined in the UAPA and there is no specific material to show that he advocated, encouraged or proposed any illegal activity.
Analyzing the evidence and statements of threadbare witnesses, the bench said in a plain reading of the chargesheet, it is not possible to record the conclusion that there is sufficient reason to believe that the charges against the accused of the commission of punishable offenses in the UAPA were prima facie. correct.
“There is no allegation in the charge sheet that the appellant is a member of a terrorist gang. Regarding the second part of being a member of a terrorist organization, under Section 2(m), a terrorist organization means an organization listed in the first schedule or an organization operating under the same name as that organization. The charge sheet does not mention the name of any terrorist organization within the meaning of Section 2(m) of which the accused is a member. We find that PFI is not a terrorist organisation, as is evident from the first schedule,” he said. PFI and its affiliates are called “unlawful associations” in the UAPA and banned by the government in September 2022. The first schedule of the UAPA lists terrorist organizations.