IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL, KIRTI SINGH, JJ.
Manjit Kaur – Appellant
Versus
National Investigation Agency – Respondent
CRA-D No. 802 of 2023
Decided On : 18-04-2024
Bail - Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act - Sections 4, 5, 13, 17, 18, 18-B, 19, 20, 23 - The court interpreted the provisions of the UAP Act and the Explosive Substances Act, emphasizing the necessity of a prima facie case and the impact of prolonged custody on bail eligibility.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was accused of harboring a co-accused involved in a conspiracy for a separate state and facilitating his escape to Cambodia. She had no prior serious criminal record and had been in custody for over 4 years without any incriminating evidence against her.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant had not been declared a terrorist and there was no recovery of incriminating material from her. The prolonged custody and lack of evidence led to the conclusion that she was entitled to bail.
Issues: Whether the appellant is entitled to bail under the UAP Act given the allegations against her and her prolonged custody without any incriminating evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the conditions for granting bail under the UAP Act were met, particularly considering the appellant's age, the duration of her custody, and the absence of a prima facie case against her.
Result: The appeal is allowed, and the appellant is granted bail.
JUDGMENT :
ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL, J.
1. This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 05.06.2023 passed by the Learned Special Judge, NIA Punjab, SAS Nagar (Mohali) in BA-1380 of 2023, RC No. 07 of 2020/NIA/DLI in FIR No. 90 dated 02.06.2019 (A-1), under Sections 4, 5 of the Explosive Substance Act, Section 13, 17, 18, 18-B, 19, 20, 23 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘UAP Act’) and Section 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station Raja Sansi, Amritsar (Rural), District Amritsar, Punjab vide which the regular bail application of the appellant has been dismissed.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has been arraigned as an accused on the ground that she had harboured the co-accused who had hatched a criminal conspiracy with other co-accused for setting up separate state. He, however, submits that prior to the registration of the instant case, she was not involved in any other serious criminal activity except cases under Section 420 IPC were registered against her. The appellant was helping her husband in immigration business and providing boarding and lodging at Cambodia. It is alleged that she had helped co-accused Kulwinderjit Singh @ Khanpuria to flee the country and arranged his stay in Cambodia during the period from January to March 2019. Co-accused Kulwinderjit Singh @ Khanpuria was neither an accused nor a wanted criminal in connection with the terrorist activity at that time. He has not been declared as a terrorist as per Schedule 4 of the UAPA till date. No recovery of any incriminating material whatsoever has been effected from her. The appellant, who is 58 year old lady, is in custody for over 04 years and 08 months since her arrest on 18.08.2019.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent, however, submits that the appellant is involved in serious unlawful activities. She had helped Kulwinderjit Singh @ Khanpuria in fleeing the country and had also conspired with another accused Harmeet Singh @ Ph.D., who was actively involved in terrorist activities. The Special Court, NIA Bench, SAS Nagar, after finding a prima facie case against the appellant, has framed charges under Sections 17, 18, 18 (b), 19 & 20 of the UAPA. Kulwinderjit Singh @ Khanpuria was also an accused in three FIRs No. 77/07 dated 19.12.2007, Police Station Special Cell, Delhi, 132 dated 31.10.2018, Police Station Lahori Gate, Division No. 04, District Patiala and RC-14/2019/NIA/DLI dated 27.06.2019, Police Station NIA, New Delhi. In response to the query of this Court as to whether Kulwinderjit Singh @ Khanpuria is declared as proclaimed offender or as to when he was declared as proclaimed offender or terrorist, learned State counsel, upon instructions from DSP Preetinder Kaur Virk, submits that in the FIR No. 132 dated 31.10.2018, open arrest warrants were issued against Kulwinderjit Singh @ Khanpuria by the competent Court on 10.08.2019 and in this case, he was declared proclaimed offender on 17.11.2021. In another NIA case, he was declared proclaimed offender on 03.02.2021. He has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Gurwinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab and submits that the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of K.A. Najeeb Vs. Union of India, would not help the case of the appellant as long custody by itself cannot be a ground to grant bail when a prima facie case is made out. The appellant is also involved in several other criminal cases. He further submits that the appellant was nominated as an accused in FIR No. 132 dated 31.10.2018, under Sections 13/16/18/20 of UAP Act, Sections 3/4/5 of Explosive Substances Act and Sections 25/54/59 of the Arms Act, Police Station Lahori Gate, Division No. 04, District Patiala on 23.11.2018. He, therefore, submits that she was actively involved in terrorist activities and is not entitled to the concession of regular bail. There is every likelihood of her indulging in these activities especially when she
Prolonged custody without incriminating evidence can justify bail under the UAP Act, despite serious allegations.
The court ruled that lack of prima facie evidence connecting the appellant to the offense warranted the granting of bail under the UAPA Act.
The court emphasized that serious allegations alone do not justify bail denial; a prima facie case must be established, especially when no specific role is attributed to the accused.
The court established that insufficient evidence and prolonged custody without charges warrant bail, even under stringent laws like UAPA.
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.
The duty of the court to examine the entire record to determine if a prima facie case is made out against the accused, especially in cases involving serious charges under special enactments like the ....
(1) Bail application – Exercise of general power to grant bail under UAP Act is severely restrictive in scope – In dealing with bail applications under UAP Act, courts are merely examining if there i....
(1) Bail – Statutory restrictions would not come in way of Constitutional Court from granting bail to accused if it finds that right of accused under Article 21 of Constitution of India has been infr....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.