Begin typing your search above and press return to search.
Top Stories

'Only 6 Out Of 109 Witnesses Examined So Far' : Supreme Court Grants Bail To UAPA Undertrial In Custody For 8 Years

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK
14 April 2022 2:31 AM GMT
Only 6 Out Of 109 Witnesses Examined So Far : Supreme Court Grants Bail To UAPA Undertrial In Custody For 8 Years
x

The Supreme Court granted bail to a UAPA under-trial accused who was in custody for nearly 8 years.Jahir Hak was arrested on 08.05.2014 in connection with FIR for offences punishable under Sections 10, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 18A, 18B, 19, 20, 23 and 38 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. A chargesheet was filed against him on 17.09.2014. Charges were framed on 29.01.2018....

The Supreme Court granted bail to a UAPA under-trial accused who was in custody for nearly 8 years.

Jahir Hak was arrested on 08.05.2014 in connection with FIR for offences punishable under Sections 10, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 18A, 18B, 19, 20, 23 and 38 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. A chargesheet was filed against him on 17.09.2014. Charges were framed on 29.01.2018. The Rajasthan High Court dismissed his bail application against which he approached the Apex Court.

The court noted that for the trial, the prosecution seeks to examine as many as 109 witnesses of which only 6 witnesses have been fully examined so far. The bench also noted that the prosecution case is that the accused was found to be in touch with one of the accused, who is the head of a sleeper cell module of Indian Mujahideen.

"Without much dispute, it can be found that the appellant who is an undertrial prisoner, has already undergone a long period of incarceration.", the bench observed.

The bench noticed the observations made in Union of India v. K. A. Najeeb (2021) (3) SCC 713 which held that delay in trial can be a ground for bail under UAPA.

The Court further observed :

"The condition in Section 43D(5) of the Act of 1967 has been understood to be less stringent than the provisions contained in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, as already noticed by us. We would think that in the nature of the case against the appellant, the evidence which has already unfolded and above all, the long period of incarceration that the appellant has already undergone, time has arrived when the appellant be enlarged on bail"

Case details

Jahir Hak vs State of Rajasthan | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 372 | Crl A 605 OF 2022 | 11 April 2022

Justices KM Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy

Counsel: AOR Mohd. Irshad Hanif for appellant, AoR Pragati Neekhra for respondent

Headnotes

Summary : Appeal against Rajasthan HC order denying bail to UAPA accused- under trial - Allowed - In the nature of the case against the appellant, the evidence which has already unfolded and above all, the long period of incarceration that the appellant has already undergone, time has arrived when the appellant be enlarged on bail.

Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 ; Section 43D(5) - The condition in Section 43D(5) of the Act of 1967 has been understood to be less stringent than the provisions contained in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. (Para 11)

Click here to Read/Download Order




Next Story