The Supreme Court of India granted bail to the appellant, Athar Parwez, booked under stringent sections of the IPC and UAPA, 1967, citing procedural delays, questionable evidence, and the principle of presumption of innocence.

I. Case Background and Charges (Paras 1-5)

• Appellant's Plea: The appeal was against the denial of bail by the High Court of Patna.
• Charges: FIR under Sections 120, 120-B, 121, 121A, 153A, 153B, and 34 of IPC; additional charges under Sections 13, 17, 18, 18A, 18B, and 20 of UAPA after the NIA took over the investigation.
• Allegations: The appellant, linked with the Popular Front of India (PFI), was accused of conspiring to disrupt national sovereignty, citing the recovery of the document "India 2047 towards rule of Islam in India."

II. Appellant's Arguments (Paras 6-12)

• Suspicious Evidence: Appellant argued that the incriminating material was allegedly recovered from premises he did not occupy.
• Freedom of Expression: His participation in demonstrations against government policies was emphasized as lawful.
• Long Detention: Appellant remained incarcerated for over two years without the framing of charges, violating Article 21 of the Constitution.

III. Prosecution's Stand (Paras 13-16)

• Incriminating Evidence: Emphasized the recovery of electronic devices and the presence of the appellant in meetings allegedly promoting illegal activities.
• Protected Witnesses: Statements linked the appellant to conspiracies involving PFI and acts targeting societal harmony.

IV. Court's Analysis on Bail Principles (Paras 17-21)

• The court referred to landmark judgments (e.g., Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb) emphasizing that prolonged incarceration without trial violates fundamental rights.
• Highlighted that legislative bars on bail under UAPA are not absolute if accusations appear baseless upon prima facie scrutiny.

V. Specific Observations (Paras 22-32)

• Lack of Prima Facie Evidence: The testimony of protected witnesses failed to directly implicate the appellant in UAPA-related offenses.
• Dubious Recovery Evidence: Material was recovered from premises not under the appellant’s tenancy.
• Presumption of Innocence: Stressed the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, irrespective of the seriousness of allegations.

VI. Order and Directions (Paras 33-37)

• The Supreme Court granted bail, directing the special court to set conditions for release.
• Observed that this judgment would not impact the trial or cases of co-accused.

Acts and Sections Discussed:

1. Indian Penal Code (IPC): Sections 120, 120-B, 121, 121A, 153A, 153B, and 34.
2. Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), 1967: Sections 13, 17, 18, 18A, 18B, and 20.
3. Constitution of India: Article 21 - Right to Life and Personal Liberty.

Ratio Decidendi:

The court underscored:

1. The need for prima facie satisfaction of charges under UAPA before denying bail.
2. Prolonged pre-trial detention without the likelihood of trial completion infringes upon fundamental rights.
3. Allegations must be substantiated with cogent evidence rather than conjecture.

Subjects:

Criminal Law, Bail, UAPA, Constitutional Rights.

UAPA, Fundamental Rights, Right to Bail, Prolonged Incarceration, Speedy Trial.