The rejection of bail was justified based on prima-facie evidence of involvement in violent conspiracy under UAP Act, with the court reiterating the principle that delays caused by accused should not benefit them.

JUDGMENT :

K.S. MUDAGAL, J.

1. Challenging the order of rejection of his bail application, accused No.5 in Spl.C.No.152/2021 on the file of XLIX Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge (Special Judge for the trial of NIA Cases) (CCH-50), Bengaluru has preferred this appeal.

2. Appellant and 145 others have been charge sheeted in the said case for the offences punishable under Sections 15 , 16, 18 and 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (for short ‘UAP Act’), Sections 143 , 147, 307, 436, 353, 332, 333, 427, 504, 506 read with Sections 149 and 34 of IPC , Section 4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 and Section 2 of the Karnataka Prevention of Destruction and Loss of Property Act, 1981 (for short ‘KPDLP Act’). Against appellant, Sections 16 , 18 and 20 of UAP Act, Sections 120B, 34, 149 read with , 145, 147, 188, 427, 436 and 353 of and Section 2 of KPDLP Act was invoked.

3. Appellant filed bail application before the trial Court claiming that he is falsely implicated in the case and he is in judicial custody since five years without trial. The same was opposed by the prosecution. The trial Court on hearing the parties by the impugned judgment and order has rejected his bail application on the following grounds:

(i) That there is prima-facie material to show involvement of the appellant in the crime.

(ii) Delay in trial is because of the calculated acts of the accused themselves. Therefore appellant cannot make the same as ground.

(iii) Section 43D(5) of UAP Act bars grant of bail as prima-facie case is forthcoming against the appellant.

4. The said order is challenged in the above case. Heard both side.

5. Sri Akarsh S Kanade, learned Counsel for the appellant reiterating the ground of appeal and grounds urged before the trial Court contended that the appellant is falsely implicated in the case and he is in custody without trial since five years. He also submitted that some of the co-accused have been granted bail by the trial Court, therefore the trial Court was in error in rejecting the bail application of the appellant. He further submitted that the mother of the appellant is suffering from carcinoma and she is solely dependant on him. Therefore, he is entitled to bail.

6. In support of his submissions, he relied on the following judgments:

1. Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb, (2021) 3 SCC 713

2. Shaheen Welfare Association v. Union of India and Ors. (1996) 2 SCC 616

3. Ajay Ajit Peter Kerkar v. Directorate of Enforcement & Anr. Crl. Appeal Nos. 2601-2602/2024 dated 16.05.2024

4. Muzammil Pasha & Ors. v. National Investigating Agency, W.P. No. 1417/2021 dated 10.06.2021

5. Ateeq Ahmed v. National Investigation Agency, Crl. Appeal No. 793/2024 dated 18.06.2024

7. Per contra, Sri P.Prasanna Kumar, learned Special Public Prosecutor justifies the impugned order on the ground that there is sufficient material to show involvement of the appellant in antinational activities. He submits that the appellant did not even spare the police and the police station. Absolutely there was no delay on the part of the prosecution, it was the strategy of the accused themselves which had led to the delay. So far as granting bail to some of the co-accused, he submits that they were not facing allegations of offences under UAP Act. Therefore parity does not apply, whereas the bail application of the similarly situated accused were rejected by the trial Court, confirmed by this Court and the Hon’ble Apex Court. He submits that the judgments relied on by appellant’s Counsel are not applicable.

8. In support of his submissions,