Punjab and Haryana High Court: In an appeal filed by the appellant-accused challenging the order dated 14-07-2023 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala whereby his bail application in the FIR registered under Sections 13, 16, 18 and 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (‘UAPA’), Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 was dismissed, the Division Bench of Anupinder Singh Grewal and Lapita Banerji, JJ., stated that Article 21 of the Constitution enshrined the fundamental right to protection of life and liberty which includes the right to speedy trial. The Court stated that the accused was in custody for about three years and eight months and the Constitutional Court would like to prevent a situation where the lengthy and arduous process of trial, becomes the punishment in itself.
Considering the accused was in custody for three years and eight months, and the end of trial was not in sight, the Court set aside the impugned order, and the accused was ordered to be released on regular bail subject to certain conditions.
Background
The accused submitted that although it was alleged that he was involved in unlawful activities but except recovery of a mobile phone, no other incriminating material was recovered from him. There was nothing to suggest that there was any monetary transaction between the accused and other co-accused nor there was any dubious entry in his bank account.
The respondents submitted that the accused was allegedly involved in anti-national activities, but only a mobile phone was alleged to have been recovered from him which had objectionable photographs of certain persons with weapons and showing ‘Referendum 2020’. It was also submitted that the accused was in contact with anti-national elements, and they were on the verge of executing some terrorist activity.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court observed that the allegations against the accused was that, he was allegedly involved in anti-national activities but only a mobile phone was recovered from him containing objectionable photographs of arms and ammunition etc. There was no other recovery either of firearms or any other incriminating material at this stage and he was in custody for over three years and eight months. The Court stated that Article 21 of the Constitution enshrined the fundamental right to protection of life and liberty includes the right to speedy trial, which was sacrosanct.
The Court stated that the accused was in custody for about three years and eight months and the Constitutional Court would like to prevent a situation where the lengthy and arduous process of trial, becomes the punishment in itself. The Court referred to Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb, (2021) 3 SCC 713 Shoma Kanti Sen v. State of Maharashtra, (2024) 6 SCC 591, etc, stated that the Supreme Court in its catena of judgments had stated that a long custody by itself would entitle the accused under UAPA to the grant of bail by invoking Article 21 of the Constitution.
Considering the accused was in custody for three years and eight months, and the end of trial was not in sight, the Court set aside the impugned order, and the accused was ordered to be released on regular bail subject to certain conditions. The Court stated that the accused should furnish a bond of Rs. 10 lakhs with two sureties each, and he should surrender his passport in the Trial Court, if he was holding the same. The Court stated that the accused should appear before the Trial Court on every date unless exempted by the Court and he should not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case or witness.
The Court further stated that the accused should not be involved in any criminal activity and if during the pendency of trial, he was found involved in commission of any offence punishable under UAPA, the prosecuting agency would be free to approach this court for recalling this order and cancellation of his bail. The accused should not sell, transfer or in any other manner create third party right over his immovable property. Further, the accused should furnish an undertaking to the effect that in case of their absence, the Trial Court might proceed with trial and not claim re-examination of any witness.
The Court stated that in case of breach of any of the conditions, or the conditions to be imposed by the Trial Court independently, it would be open to the prosecution to seek cancellation of the bail of the defaulting accused without any further reference to this Court. Similarly, if the accused seeks to threaten or otherwise influence any of the witnesses, whether directly or indirectly, then also the prosecution should be at liberty to seek cancellation of bail by making appropriate application before the Trial Court.
[Raj Kumar v. State of Punjab, 2024 SCC OnLine P&H 10237, decided on 03-09-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Appellant: Arjun Sheoran, Advocate; Rohan Gupta, Advocate and Tejasvi Sheokand, Advocate.
For the Respondents: H.S. Sullar, Senior DAG, Punjab.
Buy Constitution of India HERE
