Denying bail cannot be based solely on the severity of allegations, there must be a prima facie case to support such a decision: Punjab & Haryana High Court
Title: Gursewak Singh v. State of Punjab
Citation: CRA-D No.454 of 2021 (O&M)
Decided on: 09.11.2023
Coram: Justice Ritu Bahri and Justice Manisha Batra
Introduction
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has approved bail for an accused charged under the stringent Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA). The court stated that there was insufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case against the accused, who was alleged to be involved in planning terrorist activities in connection with Pakistan. The bench, consisting of Acting Chief Justice Ritu Bahri and Justice Manisha Batra, emphasized that, based on the presented allegations, there is no apparent basis to presume a conspiracy between the appellant and the co-accused to form a terrorist group and carry out actions against the nation’s interests.
Facts of the case
The court considered the bail petition of Gursewak Singh, who faced an FIR in 2020 under various sections including 379-B, 382, 399, 402, 411, 467, 468, 472, 473 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), Sections 15, 16, 17, 18, 18B of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA), and Section 25, subsections 6, 7, and 8 of the Arms Act, along with Section 52/54 of the Prisons Act. The accusation suggested that Singh was part of a group planning terrorist activities in different parts of the country. Additionally, it was claimed that, based on the co-accused’s disclosure statement, the appellant and others had committed a robbery, stealing 30 kg of gold from the IIFL Gold Loan Branch in Ludhiana.
Court’s observation and analysis
After considering the arguments, the Court observed that, in accordance with Section 45 of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA), no court can acknowledge offences falling under Chapter IV without prior sanction from the Central or State Government, as applicable. In this case, the required prosecution sanction for the appellant and co-accused was not granted by the competent authority until the challan presentation, and it was subsequently provided and filed in court along with a supplementary challan report. Consequently, the court questioned whether it had the jurisdiction to take cognizance of offenses under Sections 16, 17, 18, and 18B of the UAP Act before the sanction was granted under Section 45 of the UAP Act.
The bench also observed that Singh’s involvement in anti-national activities was not specifically detailed, and, based on the allegations against him, there was no prima facie case demonstrating a conspiracy between the appellant and co-accused to form a terrorist gang or commit acts against the nation’s interests.
While acknowledging the stringent provisions of the UAP Act, the Court emphasized that the severity of allegations alone is not sufficient grounds to deny bail. Considering the appellant’s approximately three-and-a-half years in custody and the anticipated duration of the trial, the Court granted relief.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by- Amrita Rout