The Supreme Court expressed surprise that the State failed to produce an accused under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) before the trial court for nearly 14 months, resulting in charges not being framed, even as the State's own affidavit acknowledged the delay was due to his non-production from jail.

A bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu questioned why the accused was not produced before the trial court for nearly 14 months and why charges had not been framed.

The Court also sought an explanation from the investigating officer regarding his non-production and directed the Patna High Court's Registrar General to obtain a report from the trial (Gaya) court.

“The investigating officer of the case shall submit a report before this Court indicating the real reason for non-production of the petitioner before the trial court, which as per the aforesaid affidavit, has contributed to non-framing of charges against him…At the same time, we require the Registrar General of the High Court to obtain a report from the relevant trial court with regard to the undesirable development that has been noted above. Such report must be placed before the Registry of this Court in a sealed cover by 15th November, 2026.”, the Court said.

The issue came to light during the hearing of bail plea challenging the Patna High Court's refusal to grant him bail in connection with an alleged offence under the UAPA, IPC and Explosives Act, and Arms Act. The prosecution alleges that the petitioner is active member of Naxalite group and on a raid, several incriminating articles have been recovered from him and others.

Petitioner's counsel pointed out that the State, in its counter-affidavit, had acknowledged that charges could not be framed because the petitioner-accused had not been produced before the trial court.

The Court recorded that the State's counsel was unable to explain why petitioner had not been produced before the trial court or why charges had not been framed.

“Mr. Akshay Amritanshu, learned counsel appearing for the State of Bihar is unable to throw light as to why for a period of almost 14 months, i.e., 10th May, 2025 (date on which the petitioner surrendered) till 29th July, 2025 (date on which supplementary charge sheet was filed), the petitioner could not be produced before the trial court and why charge has not been framed till date. Indeed, if what is disclosed in the affidavit is correct, it is surprising that the trial court has also not required the petitioner to be produced before it!”, the Court noted.

After being informed that the main accused has been granted a bail, the Court, noting that the petitioner's case stands on a better footing than the main accused, directed a release of the petitioner on an interim bail.

The matter is next listed on 17th November, 2026.

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) :Ms. Fauzia Shakil, Adv. Ms. Tanya Srivastava, AOR Ms. Kushank Mittal, Adv. Mr. Anmol Kheta, Adv. Mr. Dinesh Kumar, Adv.

For Respondent(s) :Mr. Akshay Amritanshu- 3121, AOR Mr. Sarthak Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Utkarsh Rai, Adv.