The court ruled that UAPA charges must be substantiated for bail considerations, allowing bail when such charges are excluded from the FIR.

Judgment

Mr. Sureshwar Thakur, J.

Since both criminal appeals bearing No. CRM-M-52799- 2022 and CRM-M-55313-2022 arise from a common FIR. Therefore, both the criminal appeals (supra) are amenable for becoming decided through a common verdict.

2. The facts relevant for deciding the relevant instant appeals, are, that FIR bearing No. 66 of 12.04.2022, embodying thereins offences constituted under Sections 307/341/323/427/506/148/149/34 IPC, and, under Section 25/27/54/59 of the Arms Act and Section 13 of the UAPA Act, 1967 (added lateron vide DDR No. 23 dated 12.04.2022), became registered with Police Station Tibba, District Ludhiana.

3. Before the petitioner-Parmodh accessing this Court, he had earlier instituted bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C., before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, who, had declined bail to the petitioner through its making an order on 02.11.2022, in bail application, bearing No. 22007 of 2022.

4. On the other hand, the bail applicant one Chetan, had also prior hereto, thus instituted bail application No. 22292 of 2022, before the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, whereons a verdict of dismissal was made on 02.11.2022.

5. This Court through an order made on 04.10.2023, had made the hereinafter extracted direction(s), upon, the learned State counsel.

“1. As prayed for by the learned State counsel, detailed affidavit be filed disclosing therein whether in the final report drawn under Section 173 Cr.P.C., an offence embodied under the UAPA has been included in the said report.......”

6. Moreover, through an order made on 20.10.2023, order whereof is extracted hereinafter, this Court had directed the Commissioner of Police, Ludhiana, to record his personal appearance before this Court.

“1. As prayed for, by the learned State counsel, a further period of two weeks is granted for complying with the order made by this Court, on 04.10.2023.

2. On the subsequent date of hearing, the Commissioner of Police, Ludhiana, shall record his personal appearance before this Court.....”

7. The reason for the above orders becoming passed, by this Court, became sparked from the factum, that though in the FIR (supra), an offence under Section 13 of UAPA Act, became initially included, but subsequently, in the charge-sheet drawn and filed, before the learned trial Judge concerned, by the investigating officer concerned, thereins became excluded, the offences embodied under the relevant provisions of UAPA Act.

8. Reply, on affidavit, to the petition has been filed by the Commissioner of Police, Ludhiana. A reading of the reply on affidavit discloses, that in the instant FIR, the offence under Section 13 of the UAPA Act, was added vide DDR No. 23 of 12.04.2022, thus on the ground, that during investigations, it was revealed, that the accused namely Pankaj Rajput and Chetan Sehdev, rather had created a gang, whereby they indulged into fights with the public and, as such, there was panic and fear in the society.

9. Be that as it may, it is also been mentioned in the reply, on affidavit, that during investigation(s) being carried into the petition FIR, the said investigation(s) revealed, that the provisions of Section 13 of the UAPA Act rather were not liable to be embodied in the said FIR.

10. Moreover, in the final report which became instituted under Section 173 Cr.P.C., before the learned trial Judge concerned, thereins too, since the offences under the UAPA, were not revealed to be committed by the present petitioner(s), as such, the said provisions, as carried in the UAPA, thus were ordered to be deleted vide DDR No. 12 of 23.06.2022.

11. Therefore, in the final report the offences embodied under the UAPA Act, were not included thereins. The consequence thereof, is that, the stringency of the provisions of the said Act, whereby the present petitioner(s), may become precluded to claim the facility of regular bail from this Court, do thereby become eased. Resultantly, this Court may become constrained, u