'Bail Is The Rule, Jail Is The Exception' Even In Special Statutes Like UAPA : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Tuesday (August 13) held that 'bail is the rule, jail is the exception' even in special statutes like the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967. If the conditions in the special statute for the grant of bail are met, then bail should be granted, the Court stated.A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih granted bail to a man accused of renting out his property to alleged members of banned organization Popular Front of India (PFI) for allegedly conducting PFI training sessions.“When there is a case for grant of bail the court should not hesitate to grant bail. Allegations of the prosecution may be very serious, but the court's duty is to consider the case for bail in accordance with law. Now we have said that bail is the rule and jail is the exception is applied even to special statutes. If courts start denying bail in deserving cases, it will be a violation of rights guaranteed under Article 21," Justice Oka said pronouncing the verdict.The Court allowed bail to Jalaluddin Khan who filed appeal against the judgment of the Patna High Court denying him bail."“Bail is the rule and jail is an exception” is a settled law. Even in a case like the present case where there are stringent conditions for the grant of bail in the relevant statutes, the same rule holds good with only modification that the bail can be granted if the conditions in the statute are satisfied. The rule also means that once a case is made out for the grant of bail, the Court cannot decline to grant bail", the Court said in the judgment."If the Courts start denying bail in deserving cases, it will be a violation of the rights guaranteed under Article 21 of our Constitution," the judgment added.Appellant Jalaluddin Khan was allegedly involved in plans to disrupt the Prime Minister's visit to Bihar and other unlawful activities tied to the banned organization Popular Front of India (PFI). He was booked under Sections 121, 121A and 122 of the IPC and Sections 13, 18, 18A and 20 of the UAPA.Documents allegedly related to unlawful activities were discovered during a police raid at the premises rented out by Khan. He had rented the first floor of his house to a co-accused allegedly for the purpose of conducting PFI training sessions on July 6 and 7, 2022. Jalaluddin initially denied knowledge of these activities but later admitted to renting out the premises. Individuals from outside Bihar allegedly participated in the training. As per the prosecution, these training sessions were part of a broader plan to regroup former members of SIMI (Students Islamic Movement of India) and PFI into a new group with the intent to take violent actions in retaliation for perceived atrocities against Muslims in India.The appellant claimed that he was not affiliated with PFI or any banned organization and that his involvement was limited to renting property.The Special NIA Court had earlier rejected their bail applications. The HC, after reviewing the police documents, charge sheet, and statements of protected witnesses, upheld the Special Court's decision to deny bail to appellant and his co-accused Athar Parwez citing Section 43D of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. The Court cited the severity of the charges, the risk of the offense being repeated, and the potential for evidence tampering as reasons for maintaining the bail denial. Thus, the appellant approached the Supreme Court.The HC also ruled that providing legal assistance to members of banned organizations, such as the PFI does not fall under any of the proscribed categories of terrorist acts under the UAPA while granting bail to co-accused Advocate Nooruddin Jangi, booked under Sections 120, 120B, 121, 121A, 153A, 153B, and 34 of the IPC.Senior Advocate Mukta Gupta along with Advocates Nitya Gupta, Rizwan Ahmad (AOR), Shaikh Saipan Dastgir, Paras Nath Sing, and Himanshu Gupta represented the appellant.ASG Aishwarya Bhati along with advocates Mrigank Pathak, Rajat Nair, Shagun Thakur, Chitrangda Rastvara, Neelakshi Bhadauria, and Arvind Kumar Sharma (AOR) represented the Union of India. Related - UAPA | Wrong To Say Bail Cannot Be Granted Under A Particular Statute : Supreme Court Distinguishes 'Gurwinder Singh' Judgment.Case no. – Crl.A. No. 3173/2024Case Title – Jalaluddin Khan v. Union of IndiaClick Here To Read/Download Judgment Also from the judgment - 'NIA Owes An Explanation' : Supreme Court Flags Discrepancy Between Witness Statement Narrated In Chargesheet & Actual Statement

'Bail Is The Rule, Jail Is The Exception' Even In Special Statutes Like UAPA : Supreme Court

Amisha Shrivastava

"If the Courts start denying bail in deserving cases, it will be a violation of the rights guaranteed under Article 21 of our Constitution," the Court said,

Tags