UAPA | Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Default Bail In Alleged Terrorism Case, Condones 1415-Day Delay

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has granted default bail to an accused in an alleged terrorism case registered under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, while condoning an extraordinary delay of 1415 days in filing the statutory appeal, primarily on the ground of parity with a co-accused who had earlier secured identical relief from the Supreme Court and the prolonged incarceration of the appellant for nearly seven years.Justice Gurvinder Singh Gill and Justice Ramesh Kumari noted, "the prosecution had not presented the challan within the prescribed period of 90 days, which expired on 21.02.2019 and thereafter the appellant alongwith co-accused had moved an application seeking default bail which came to be dismissed primarily on the ground that the period of 90 days stood extended upto 180 days, whereas the said order of extension was subsequently set aside by the Additional Sessions Judge/Exclusive Court, Amritsar and thus, there was no extension of time and the accused was required to be released on bail having specifically approached for the same."Identically situated co-accused – Bikramjit Singh, who had applied jointly with the appellant for grant of default bail, had approached this Court and subsequently the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court, while reiterating that the Illaqa Magistrate/SDJM, Ajnala was not competent to grant extension of period for concluding investigation from 90 days to 180 days and that an indefeasible right for default bail came to be vested in the accused, granted bail to co-accused Bikramjit Singh by making strong observations in this regard.The Division Bench was hearing, an application filed by Avtar Singh under Section 21(5) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 read with Section 528 BNSS, seeking condonation of delay along with the appeal challenging the order dated 11.04.2019 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, which had dismissed the applicant's revision petition against rejection of default bail by the SDJM, Ajnala.The case arises from FIR, under Sections 302, 307, 452, 341, 427, 34 IPC, Section 25 of the Arms Act, Sections 3 to 6 of the Explosive Act, and Sections 13, 16, 18 and 18-B of the UAPA.As per the prosecution, a grenade was lobbed at a Nirankari Bhawan during a religious congregation, resulting in the death of three persons and injuries to 22 others. Avtar Singh is alleged to be one of the perpetrators.Avtar Singh and co-accused Bikramjit Singh had jointly sought default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC (now Section 187 BNSS) on 25.02.2019, after expiry of the statutory 90-day period. The application was dismissed on the ground that the time for filing the challan had been extended to 180 days.However, the order granting extension was subsequently set aside in revision by the Additional Sessions Judge on 25.03.2019. Despite this, the revision against rejection of default bail was dismissed on 11.04.2019.While Avtar Singh did not immediately approach the High Court, co-accused Bikramjit Singh challenged the rejection of default bail up to the Supreme Court. In Criminal Appeal No.667 of 2020, the Supreme Court granted him default bail on 12.10.2020, holding that the SDJM was not competent to extend the period for filing the challan and that an indefeasible right had accrued in favour of the accused.The State opposed condonation of delay, relying on Section 21 of the NIA Act, which prescribes a maximum condonable period of 90 days, and argued that the appeal was in the nature of a second revision.Rejecting these objections, the High Court held that the present case disclosed exceptional and peculiar circumstances, warranting condonation of delay.The Court emphasised that, Default bail is a one-time indefeasible right, unlike regular bail where successive applications are permissible.The appellant stood on absolute parity with co-accused Bikramjit Singh, whose joint application for default bail had been rejected by the same common order, it noted.While allowing the plea, the Court also noted that he had been in custody for nearly seven years, and only 60 out of 128 prosecution witnesses had been examined, indicating a protracted trial.Mr. Vipul Jindal, Advocate, for the applicant/appellant.Mr. Sidharth Attri, AAG, Punjab, assisted by ASI Ghanshyam Sundar.Mr. R.K.Kapoor and Mr. Shobit Phutela, Advocates, for the complainant.Title: Avtar Singh v. State of PunjabClick here to read order

UAPA | Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Default Bail In Alleged Terrorism Case, Condones 1415-Day Delay

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags