2021 (2) TMI 1212 - SC - Indian Laws

Seeking grant of Bail - offence under Sections 143, 147, 148, 120 B, 341, 427, 323, 324, 326, 506(H), 201, 202, 153A, 212, 307, 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and Sections 16, 18, 18 B, 19 and 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 - HELD THAT - It must be emphasised at the outset that there is a vivid distinction between the parameters to be applied while considering a bail application, vis vis those applicable while deciding a petition for its cancellation. In PURAN AND ORS. VERSUS RAMBILAS AND ORS. 2001 (5) TMI 971 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA , it was re iterated that at the time of deciding an application for bail, it would be necessary to record reasons, albeit without evaluating the evidence on merits. In turn, PURAN AND ORS. VERSUS RAMBILAS AND ORS. 2001 (5) TMI 971 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA cited GURCHARAN SINGH ORS. VERSUS STATE (DELHI ADMINISTRATION) 1977 (12) TMI 141 - SUPREME COURT ; wherein this Court observed that bail once granted by the trial Court, could be cancelled by the same Court only in case of new circumstances/evidence, failing which, it would be necessary to approach the Higher Court exercising appellate jurisdiction. The charges levelled against the respondent are grave and a serious threat to societal harmony. Had it been a case at the threshold, we would have outrightly turned down the respondent s prayer. However, keeping in mind the length of the period spent by him in custody and the unlikelihood of the trial being completed anytime soon, the High Court appears to have been left with no other option except to grant bail. An attempt has been made to strike a balance between the appellant s right to lead evidence of its choice and establish the charges beyond any doubt and simultaneously the respondent s rights guaranteed under Part III of our Constitution have been well protected. Besides the conditions to be imposed by the trial Court while releasing the respondent, it would serve the best interest of justice and the society at large to impose some additional conditions that the respondent shall mark his presence every week on Monday at 10AM at the local police station and inform in writing that he is not involved in any other new crime - Appeal dismissed.

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the High Court's order granting bail.
2. Applicability of Section 43-D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA).
3. Constitutional right to a speedy trial and prolonged incarceration.
4. Balancing statutory restrictions with constitutional rights.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the High Court's Order Granting Bail:
The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court erred in granting bail to the respondent, who was accused of serious offenses including those under the UAPA. The High Court had released the respondent on bail due to the prolonged period of incarceration and the unlikelihood of the trial commencing soon. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court did not determine the likelihood of the respondent being guilty or whether the rigors of Section 43-D(5) of UAPA were applicable. Instead, the High Court exercised its power to grant bail based on the respondent's prolonged incarceration and the principle of speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.

2. Applicability of Section 43-D(5) of UAPA:
The Supreme Court discussed the statutory rigors of Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA, which imposes stringent conditions for granting bail. The prosecution argued that the High Court failed to consider these statutory restrictions. The Supreme Court highlighted that while the legislative policy against granting bail must be appreciated at the commencement of proceedings, the rigors of such provisions would diminish if there was no likelihood of the trial being completed within a reasonable time and the period of incarceration already undergone had exceeded a substantial part of the prescribed sentence.

3. Constitutional Right to a Speedy Trial and Prolonged Incarceration:
The Supreme Court emphasized the constitutional right to a speedy trial, noting that prolonged incarceration without trial violates the respondent's rights under Part III of the Constitution. The Court referred to previous judgments, including Shaheen Welfare Association v. Union of India, which justified the invocation of Article 21 in cases of gross delay in trial. The Court observed that the respondent had already been in custody for over five years, with 276 witnesses left to be examined, making the completion of the trial unlikely in the near future.

4. Balancing Statutory Restrictions with Constitutional Rights:
The Supreme Court acknowledged the gravity of the charges against the respondent but emphasized the need to balance statutory restrictions with constitutional rights. The Court noted that the presence of statutory restrictions like Section 43-D(5) of UAPA does not oust the ability of Constitutional Courts to grant bail on grounds of violation of constitutional rights. The Court also pointed out that Section 43-D(5) of UAPA is less stringent than Section 37 of the NDPS Act, as it does not require the Court to be satisfied that the accused is not guilty and is unlikely to commit another offense while on bail.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's order granting bail to the respondent, subject to additional conditions. The respondent was required to mark his presence every week at the local police station and refrain from participating in activities that might enrage communal sentiments. The Court emphasized that the trial court could cancel the bail if the respondent violated any conditions or attempted to tamper with evidence, influence witnesses, or hamper the trial. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

← Previous Next →