9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (1) TMI 1286 - SCH - Indian LawsRejection of bail - covert or overt Act of terrorism - proviso to Section 43D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 - HELD THAT - This Court had the occasion to examine the provisions of Section 43D(5) proviso inserted by Act 35 of 2008, in the case of NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY VERSUS ZAHOOR AHMAD SHAH WATALI 2019 (4) TMI 2023 - SUPREME COURT . The ratio indicates that the Court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing the accusation against the accused are prima facie, not true. Proceeding with the understanding of the law enunciated by this Court in Watali and the discussion of the same ratio in the case of Vernon Vs. The State of Maharashtra Anr. 2023 (7) TMI 1384 - SUPREME COURT , together with the materials in the shape of the chargesheet made available before this Court and looking into the criminal antecedent of the accused in a case of similar nature, the bail is not merited in the present matter. The SLP is dismissed.
Issues Involved:
The judgment involves the consideration of bail for the petitioner who is an accused in a case involving sections of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. The primary issue revolves around the application of Section 43D(5) of the UAPA Act in determining the bail eligibility of the petitioner. Details of the Judgment: 1. The petitioner, accused in a case under Explosive Substances Act and UAPA Act, sought bail after its rejection by the High Court. The petitioner's counsel argued that the co-accused's statements, which are the primary basis for implicating the petitioner, are inadmissible in law, thus justifying bail consideration despite the proviso to Section 43D(5) of the UAPA Act. 2. The petitioner's counsel contended that the absence of SUFA in the list of banned Terrorist Organizations under the UAPA Act weakens the connection between the accused and the alleged crime. Referring to specific sections of the UAPA Act, the counsel emphasized that mere association with such organizations does not establish guilt. 3. Citing precedent (State Vs. Nalini and Ors.), the petitioner's counsel argued that statements made by co-accused to the police may be relevant to them but not necessarily to the accused. Additionally, it was highlighted that no overt or covert act of terrorism was attributed to the petitioner by the prosecution. 4. On the other hand, the Additional Solicitor General opposed bail, citing the petitioner's criminal antecedents and close association with individuals covered under the UAPA Act. Referring to Section 43D(5), the ASG argued that unless the accusations against the petitioner are prima facie untrue, the burden lies on the accused to meet the threshold limit for bail consideration. 5. The Court, considering the legal provisions and precedents, including the examination of Section 43D(5) proviso in previous cases, concluded that bail was not warranted in the present matter. The decision was based on the assessment of the materials, chargesheet, and the accused's criminal history in a similar case. 6. The Special Leave Petition was dismissed, and any pending applications were disposed of accordingly.
|
