Over five years in custody, only one witness examined: HC grants bail in UAPA case

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has granted bail to an accused in a Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) case after observing that he had already been in custody for more than five years and six months, while the trial showed no signs of conclusion with only one out of 40 prosecution witnesses examined so far.

The Bench of Justice Deepak Sibal and Justice Lapita Banerji made it clear the case was marred by prolonged delay. For five-and-a-half years, no effort was made to interrogate the main accused serving sentence in another case in Tihar Jail, Delhi. The main co-accused in the present FIR, registered in February 2020, was yet to be arrested, despite the challan having been filed on March 1, 2021.

“No reasonable explanation has been provided as to why the main co-accused has not been arrested in the present case and why custodial interrogation has not been done till date,” the Bench asserted.

The accused was represented by advocate Amit Agnihotri, Mani Makkar, Anju Sharma Kaushik and Abhishek Jindal.

The court added that trial progress remained negligible adding that even after charges were framed under the provisions of the IPC, the Arms Act, and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) in April last year.

The court added that the State counsel was also unable to provide reasonable estimate of the time required for trial’s completion. As such, the court was “left with no other option but to release the appellant on bail”.

The prosecution’s case was that the accused, Ashish Kumar, had allegedly supplied illegal arms to co-accused and his associates for committing offences such as murders, dacoities, loot and extortion. “From perusal of the affidavit filed on State’s behalf, it transpired that the appellant had been apprehended only on the basis of secret information given by one of the police officials. The only evidence that has been brought on record at this stage are the statements made by the chance witnesses,” the Bench added.

The court added “link evidence” had not been established to connect the appellant to the commission of any crime, “more so to a crime/offence showing his involvement under the UAPA”. Apart from the statements of chance witnesses, the State counsel was unable to show further evidence collected against the appellant connecting to an offence under the UAPA,”

Referring to the right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution, the Bench asserted long custody by itself would entitle an accused under UAPA to bail. Citing Supreme Court precedent, it warned against situations “where the lengthy and arduous process of trial becomes the punishment in itself.”

The High Court, accordingly set aside the order of Mohali Additional Sessions Judge, dated January 8, 2024, vide which Ashish Kumar’s bail plea was rejected.