Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Hany Babu, a professor and academic, was arrested on 28 July 2020 in connection with FIR No. 1 of 2020 registered by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) relating to the Bhima Koregaon-Elgar Parishad case. He was accused No. 12 in Special Case No. 414/2022 before the Special Court (NIA), Greater Mumbai, and was charged with offences under the Indian Penal Code and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAP Act). The NIA alleged that the appellant was a member of the banned terrorist organisation CPI (Maoist) and was involved in furthering its agenda. The appellant filed a bail application before the Special Court, which was rejected on 14 February 2022. He then appealed to the Bombay High Court under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008. The High Court considered the stringent bail provisions under Section 43D(5) of the UAP Act, which imposes a bar on bail unless the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation is not prima facie true. The court noted that the appellant had been in custody for over two years and the trial had not commenced. It observed that the appellant was an academic with no criminal antecedents and that the material on record did not directly link him to any terrorist act. The court also applied the principle of parity, noting that co-accused with similar or greater roles had been granted bail by the Supreme Court. The court held that prolonged incarceration without trial violates the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution and that the bar under Section 43D(5) is not absolute. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal and granted bail to the appellant on such terms and conditions as deemed fit.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Bail - Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 - Section 43D(5) - Prolonged Incarceration - The appellant, an academic, was arrested on 28 July 2020 and remained in custody for over two years without trial. The court held that the bar under Section 43D(5) is not absolute and must yield to the right to a speedy trial under Article 21. Considering the appellant's role as a professor with no criminal antecedents and the lack of direct evidence linking him to a terrorist act, bail was granted. (Paras 1-30) B) Criminal Law - Bail - Parity - Co-accused - The court noted that co-accused with similar or greater roles had been granted bail by the Supreme Court. The appellant was entitled to parity, as his alleged role was not more serious than those already released. (Paras 20-25) C) Constitutional Law - Right to Speedy Trial - Article 21 - Prolonged incarceration without trial violates the fundamental right to a speedy trial. The court emphasized that the right to life and liberty cannot be subordinated to statutory restrictions indefinitely. (Paras 26-30)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellant is entitled to bail under the stringent provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, considering the bar under Section 43D(5) and the prolonged period of incarceration without commencement of trial.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The appellant is directed to be released on bail on such terms and conditions as the court deems fit.
Law Points
- Bail under UAP Act
- Section 43D(5) of UAP Act
- prolonged incarceration
- Article 21 of Constitution
- presumption of innocence
- parity with co-accused
- role of academic
- no direct evidence of terrorist act
