The court emphasized that without prima facie evidence implicating the accused, bail should not be denied, reinforcing the scrutiny needed under stringent laws like UAPA.

Judgment

Mr. Anupinder Singh Grewal, J.

The appellant has challenged the order passed by the Special Judge, Moga dated 03.02.2023 dismissing her bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in FIR No.222 dated 04.10.2022 under Sections 25(6), 25(7) of the Arms Act, Sections 10 , 13, 18 & 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 [for short,’ the UAPA ’] and Sections 3, 4, 5 & 6 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, registered at Police Station Baghapurana.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there is no prima facie material which would connect the appellant with the commission of the offence except the statement made by co-accused-Vijay Singh @ Vija, who is the husband of the appellant. There is no discovery of any fact or any article in pursuance to the disclosure statement. The allegations against co-accused Vijay Singh are also on the basis of statement of co-accused, namely, Harpreet Singh @ Hira from whom recovery of two pistols, 50 live cartridges and 03 hand grenades have been effected. The appellant was at an advanced stage of pregnancy when she had been arrested and had given birth to a child in jail. She is not involved in any other criminal case. In support of his submissions, he has relied upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Jaffar Hussain Dastagir versus State of Maharashtra , (1969) 2 SCC 872 and Yedala Subba Rao and another versus Union of India , (2023) 6 SCC 65 .

3. Learned State counsel, upon instructions from DSP Jasjyot Singh, who is the Investigating Officer, submits that the appellant had been arraigned as an accused on the statement of co-accused-Vijay Singh. He has referred to the affidavit dated 05.10.2023 filed by the Investigating Officer. He also submits that although challan has been filed but charges are yet to be framed. He has filed the custody certificate which indicates that the appellant is in custody for 11 months and 25 days as on 09.10.2023.

4. Heard.

5. The appellant has been arraigned as an accused on the statement of co-accused-Vijay Singh, who is her husband. The disclosure statement of co-accused Vijay Singh is reproduced hereunder:-

“During investigation conducted by me in presence of following witnesses, accused Vija Singh @ Vijay Singh got recorded his statement that my wife Sukhpreet Kaur @ Sukhi is fully supporting me in the illegal activities being done by me. I alongwith Ranjoodh Singh @ Jyoti son of Satpal Singh resident of Ganji Gulab Singh Wala, taken the parcel from border on the basis of location sent by Arsh Dala, in said parcel one bag containing hand-grenade and pistol etc. I handed over said parcel to my wife Sukhpreet Kaur @ Sukhi to kept conceal the same and my wife had concealed the said parcel and after that as per my directions she sent the said parcel to me and thereafter, I and Ranjodh Singh @ Jyoti had further send the same to the persons related to Arsh Dala. On this memo of disclosure statement has been prepared. On it signatures of Vija Singh @ Vijay Singh has been obtained and same has been witnessed by the witnesses.”

6. It is manifest from a bare reading of the statement of co-accused Vijay Singh that although it is described as a disclosure statement under Section 27 of the EVIDENCE ACT but interestingly there is no discovery of any fact or recovery of any incriminating article from the appellant.

7. The Supreme Court in the case of Jaffar Hussain Dastagir versus State of Maharashtra (supra) had held that the disclosure statement would be admissible if it leads to discovery of fact. The relevant extract thereof is reproduced hereunder:-

“Under Section 25 of the EVIDENCE ACT no confession made by an accused to a police officer can be admitted in evidence agains