2024 (3) TMI 175 - SC - Indian Laws

Seeking grant of bail - charges under the UAP Act along with other charges under the Indian Penal Code and Arms Act - reliance placed on disclosure statement - HELD THAT - The test for rejection of bail is quite plain. Bail must be rejected as a 'rule', if after hearing the public prosecutor and after perusing the final report or Case Diary, the Court arrives at a conclusion that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusations are prima facie true. It is only if the test for rejection of bail is not satisfied - that the Courts would proceed to decide the bail application in accordance with the 'tripod test' (flight risk, influencing witnesses, tampering with evidence). This position is made clear by Sub-section (6) of Section 43D, which lays down that the restrictions, on granting of bail specified in Sub-section (5), are in addition to the restrictions under the Code of Criminal Procedure or any other law for the time being in force on grant of bail. The question of entering the 'second test' of the inquiry will not arise if the 'first test' is satisfied. And merely because the first test is satisfied, that does not mean however that the Accused is automatically entitled to bail. The Accused will have to show that he successfully passes the 'tripod test'. The material available on record indicates the involvement of the Appellant in furtherance of terrorist activities backed by members of banned terrorist organization involving exchange of large quantum of money through different channels which needs to be deciphered and therefore in such a scenario if the Appellant is released on bail there is every likelihood that he will influence the key witnesses of the case which might hamper the process of justice. Therefore, mere delay in trial pertaining to grave offences as one involved in the instant case cannot be used as a ground to grant bail. Hence, the aforesaid argument on the behalf the Appellant cannot be accepted. The material on record prima facie indicates the complicity of the Accused as a part of the conspiracy since he was knowingly facilitating the commission of a preparatory act towards the commission of terrorist act Under Section 18 of the UAP Act - Bail application dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Denial of bail to the appellant under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.
2. Application of Section 43D(5) of the UAP Act.
3. Prima facie involvement of the appellant in the alleged offenses.
4. Relevance of the appellant's prolonged custody.

Summary:

Denial of Bail:
The appellant challenged the High Court's decision upholding the Special Judge's order denying bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The appellant, along with co-accused, was charged under various sections of the IPC, UAP Act, and Arms Act. The High Court rejected bail due to the seriousness of the offense and the non-examination of protected witnesses.

Application of Section 43D(5) of UAP Act:
The Court emphasized the restrictive nature of bail provisions under Section 43D(5) of the UAP Act, which prohibits bail if there are reasonable grounds to believe the accusations are prima facie true. The Court noted that the "prima facie true" standard is lighter than that required for discharge or framing of charges.

Prima Facie Involvement:
The investigation revealed that the appellant was involved in activities of the banned terrorist organization "Sikhs for Justice," and had traveled to Srinagar to procure weapons. The appellant's communication records and disclosure statements indicated his complicity. The Court found that the material on record, including CDRs and disclosure statements, prima facie indicated the appellant's involvement in the conspiracy and preparatory acts towards committing a terrorist act under Section 18 of the UAP Act.

Prolonged Custody:
The appellant's counsel argued that the appellant had been in custody for five years, citing the K.A. Najeeb case. However, the Court distinguished this case, noting that the trial was ongoing with 22 witnesses examined. The Court concluded that releasing the appellant could influence key witnesses and hamper justice. Mere delay in trial could not be a ground for bail in cases involving grave offenses.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court rejected the bail application, finding prima facie evidence of the appellant's involvement in the conspiracy. The appeal was dismissed, with the Court clarifying that observations made were solely for deciding the bail application and not on the merits of the case before the trial court.