Punjab and Haryana High Court grants bail to UAPA accused citing right to speedy trial

Saurabh Malik

Advertisement

Chandigarh, August 12

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear that the conditions for granting bail under Unlawful Activities Prevention Act are stringent. But ‘constitutional court’ would like to prevent a situation where the lengthy and arduous process of trial, becomes the punishment in itself. It remained the court's duty to thoroughly examine the evidence against the accused.

The assertion came as a Division Bench granted regular bail to a UAPA accused, emphasizing the fundamental right to a speedy trial as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

“We are conscious of the fact that the conditions for granting bail to an accused under the UAPA are stringent. However, at the same time, it is the duty of the Court to carefully scrutinize the material against the appellant. We do not find any adequate material against the appellant which would justify his further incarceration,” the Bench of Justice Anupinder Singh Grewal and Justice Lapita Banerji asserted.

The Bench observed the allegations against the accused were that he, along with co-accused, was involved in anti-national activities. He was alleged to be in touch with a person based in Italy and wanted in several cases.

The Bench asserted it was apt to notice that recovery of firearms or incriminating material was not carried out from him. The appellant was 26-year-old at the time of FIR registration and had been in custody for one year and eight months.

“Article 21 of the Constitution of India enshrines the fundamental right to protection of life and liberty. It also includes the right to speedy trial, which is sacrosanct. It has been held by the Supreme Court in a catena of judgments that long custody by itself would entitle the accused under UAPA to the grant of bail by invoking Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

“In the instant case, none of the 25 prosecution witnesses has been examined. It would be difficult to hazard a guess about the conclusion of trial, when all the 25 prosecution witnesses are yet to be

examined…, the Bench asserted.