UAPA Annual Digest 2021 : Important Judgments Of Supreme Court & High Courts

As we step into 2022, LiveLaw brings to you a yearly Round-up of important cases pertaining to the controversial Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 from the Supreme Court, High Courts and trial courts across the country. This yearly digest includes 90 judgments and orders. Supreme Court1. Violation Of Fundamental Right To Speedy Trial Is A Ground For Constitutional Court To Grant Bail In UAPA Cases: Supreme Court [Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb]The Supreme Court has held that Section 43D (5) of UAPA per se does not oust the ability of Constitutional Courts to grant bail on ground of violation of Fundamental Right to Speedy Trial. The bench comprising Justices NV Ramana, Surya Kant and Aniruddha Bose also observed that the rigours of the provision will melt down where there is no likelihood of trial being completed within a reasonable time and the period of incarceration already undergone has exceeded a substantial part of the prescribed sentence. The court noted that, in this case, the High Court invoked its power to grant bail owing to the long period of incarceration and the unlikelihood of the trial being completed anytime in the near future. The reasons assigned by the High Court are apparently traceable back to Article 21 of our Constitution, of course without addressing the statutory embargo created by Section 43D (5) of UAPA, the court observed. Referring to various judgment, the court observed: "The presence of statutory restrictions like Section 43D (5) of UAPA per se does not oust the ability of Constitutional Courts to grant bail on grounds of violation of Part III of the Constitution. Indeed, both the restrictions under a Statue as well as the powers exercisable under Constitutional Jurisdiction can be well harmonised. Whereas at commencement of proceedings, Courts are expected to appreciate the legislative policy against grant of bail but the rigours of such provisions will melt down where there is no likelihood of trial being completed within a reasonable time and the period of incarceration already undergone has exceeded a substantial part of the prescribed sentence. Such an approach would safeguard against the possibility of provisions like Section 43D (5) of UAPA being used as the sole metric for denial of bail or for wholesale breach of constitutional right to speedy trial". The court also noted that the accused has been in jail for more than five years, and that there are 276 witnesses left to be examined. and the charges have been framed only on 27.11.2020. It further noted: "Still further, two opportunities were given to the appellant NIA who has shown no inclination to screen its endless list of witnesses. It also deserves mention that of the thirteen co-accused who have been convicted, none have been given a sentence of more than eight years' rigorous imprisonment. It can therefore be legitimately expected that if found guilty, the respondent too would receive a sentence within the same ballpark. Given that twothird of such incarceration is already complete, it appears that the respondent has already paid heavily for his acts of fleeing from justice."2. Bail- Restrictions In Section 43D(5) of UAPA Act Are Comparatively Less Stringent Than Section 37 NDPS Act [Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb]In a significant judgment pronounced on Monday, the Supreme Court observed that Section 43D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, is comparatively less stringent than Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. "Unlike the NDPS where the competent Court needs to be satisfied that prima facie the accused is not guilty and that he is unlikely to commit another offence while on bail; there is no such precondition under the UAPA. Instead, Section 43D (5) of UAPA merely provides another possible ground for the competent Court to refuse bail, in addition to the well settled considerations like gravity of the offence, possibility of tampering with evidence, influencing the witnesses or chance of the accused evading the trial by absconsion etc", the Bench observed. The Court also observed that the constitutionality of harsh conditions for bail in such special enactments has thus been primarily justified on the touchstone of speedy trials to ensure the protection of innocent civilians.3. Supreme Court Dismisses NIA's Plea Challenging Default Bail To Sudha Bharadwaj In Bhima Koregaon Case [NIA vs Sudha Bhardwaj]The Supreme Court dismissed the petition filed by the National Investigation Agency challenging the default bail granted to lawyer-activist Sudha Bharadwaj by the Bombay High Court on December 1, after over three years of her arrest in the Bhima Koregaon case. A Bench comprising Justice UU Lalit, Justice Ravindra Bhat and Justice Bela Trivedi observed that there was no reason to interfere with the Bombay High Court's order and dismissed the NIA's ...

UAPA Annual Digest 2021 : Important Judgments Of Supreme Court & High Courts

Aaratrika Bhaumik

Tags