Supreme Court Allows Bail for Undertrial After Extended Custody Period. The appellant was in custody for nearly 8 years with slow trial progress, warranting bail under Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA.

In Favour of Accused
  • 2
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The case involved an appeal by the appellant who sought bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure after being in custody since 08.05.2014 for offences under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. The appellant was arrested in connection with FIR 113/2014 and had undergone nearly 8 years of incarceration with only 6 out of 109 witnesses examined. The Supreme Court noted the slow pace of the trial and the fact that the evidence of even the first witness was incomplete. The Court issued several orders to expedite the trial, including a report from the Additional District and Sessions Judge regarding the timeline for trial completion. The State indicated that the trial could take an additional 2-3 years. The appellant's counsel argued that the evidence against him was weak, with one witness declared hostile and others failing to implicate him. The Court referenced previous judgments that allowed bail in similar circumstances, emphasizing the importance of speedy trials. Ultimately, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and directed the appellant's release on bail, subject to conditions set by the trial court, while noting that the observations were specific to the bail application and did not affect the trial's outcome.

Headnote

A) Criminal Procedure - Bail - Right to Bail - Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, Section 43-D(5) - The appellant, having been in custody for nearly 8 years, was denied bail by the High Court. The Supreme Court noted the lengthy period of incarceration and the slow progress of the trial, allowing bail while emphasizing the need for timely examination of witnesses (Paras 1-11).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the appellant is entitled to bail after being in custody for nearly 8 years under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order denying bail, and directed the appellant's release on bail subject to conditions set by the trial court.

Law Points

  • Bail under UAPA
  • Right to speedy trial
  • Conditions for bail
  • Length of custody
  • Witness protection
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2022 LawText (SC) (04) 209

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 605 OF 2022

2022-04-11

K.M. Joseph, Hrishikesh Roy

Mohd. Irshad Hanif, Mujahid Ahmed, Rizwan Ahmed, Danish Sher Khan, A. R. Siddiqui, Mohit Kumar, Pragati Neekhra

Jahir Hak

The State of Rajasthan

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Criminal appeal for bail under UAPA

Remedy Sought

Appellant sought bail after prolonged custody

Filing Reason

Denial of bail by the High Court

Previous Decisions

High Court rejected bail application

Issues

Entitlement to bail after prolonged custody Impact of trial delays on bail considerations

Submissions/Arguments

Appellant's counsel argued for bail citing lengthy custody and weak evidence State counsel opposed bail citing serious charges and ongoing trial

Ratio Decidendi

The Court emphasized the right to bail under less stringent conditions in UAPA compared to other acts, particularly in light of the lengthy custody and slow trial progress.

Judgment Excerpts

The petitioner is in custody since the last 7 years. There is a probability of taking at least 2 to 3 years in disposal of the instant case. The appellant has already spent nearly 8 years in custody.

Procedural History

The appellant was arrested on 08.05.2014, chargesheet filed on 17.09.2014, charges framed on 29.01.2018, and multiple hearings and orders issued by the Supreme Court regarding bail and trial progress.

Acts & Sections

  • Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Section 439
  • Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967: Section 43-D(5)
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Addresses Interest Rate in Consumer Protection Cases — Clarifies Compensation Principles. The court ruled that the uniform application of an 18% interest rate by Consumer Forums is unsustainable and must be based on specific case fact...
Related Judgement
High Court Madras High Court Examines Writ Petition Challenging Community Certificate Classifying Petitioner as Most Backward Class Instead of Scheduled Tribe; Petitioner Asserts Belonging to Hindu Kurumans Community