Time-barred appeals in UAPA cases not maintainable: High Court

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear that an appeal filed by an accused after inordinate in matters involving offences under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) cannot be entertained.

The Division Bench of Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Kuldeep Tiwari asserted in its detailed order that the appeal filed by the accused against a Special Judge's order declining bail in a case involving offences under the provisions of the UAPA will not be maintainable, if delayed beyond the statutory time limit.

The Bench also referred to its earlier judgment in the case of “Navish Kumar alias Navi versus the State of Punjab” to say that appeals filed under Section 21 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, beyond the statutory time limit were legally untenable.

The court ruled that judicial consistency was vital to avoid conflicting rulings and maintain legal discipline.

It added the reason for its observation stemmed from the fact the court in Navish Kumar’s case had held that any time-barred appeal filed by an accused against a declining order passed by the Special Judge, concerning an application involving offences under the UAPA, would not be maintainable.

The ruling came in a case where the court had initially condoned a delay of 706 days in filing the appeal, but the Bench later exercised its suo motu powers to review and set aside that condonation order.

The matter was placed before the Bench after the accused filed a time-barred appeal against Punjab and other respondents. It was accompanied by an application under the provisions of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay in the filing of the appeal against the Special Judge’s order declining the bail plea.

“Though this court vide order dated August 9, 2024, had condoned the delay in the filing of the instant appeal, the said condonation of the delay does not preclude this court from suo motu reviewing the order  passed by this court,” the Bench observed.

The court also dismissed the appeal as non-maintainable, while reversing its earlier order.