IMPORTANT POINT
Prolonged custody without trial can violate the right to speedy trial, justifying bail under UAPA despite serious allegations.

JUDGMENT :

Anupinder Singh Grewal, J.

1. The appellant has challenged the order dated 14.07.2023 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala whereby his bail application in FIR No. 144 dated 28.06.2020, registered under Sections 13, 16, 18, 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 [for short’ UAPA’] Section 25 of the Arms Act at Police Station Samana, District Patiala, has been dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that although it is alleged that the appellant was involved in unlawful activities but except recovery of a mobile phone, no other incriminating material has been recovered from him. There is nothing to suggest that there was any monetary transaction between the appellant and other co-accused nor there was any dubious entry in his bank account.

3. Learned counsel for the State submits that the allegations against the appellant are that he was allegedly involved in anti-national activities but only a mobile phone is alleged to have been recovered from him which is stated to have contained objectionable photographs of certain persons with weapons and showing ‘Referendum 2020’. He also submits that he was in contact with anti-national elements and they were on the verge of executing some terrorist activity. The appellant had also sent a video threatening one Parveen Kumar. He is in custody for over 3 years and 9 months.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant in support of his submissions, has placed reliance upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb, (2021) 3 SCC 713 and Shoma Kanti Sen vs. State of Maharashtra and another, 2024 SCC Online SC 498, wherein it has been held that long custody by itself would entitle the accused under UAPA to grant of bail by invoking Article 21 of the Constitution of India. He has also relied upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Vernon vs. State of Maharashtra and another, 2023 SCC Online 885, Sheikh Javed Iqbal @ Ashfaq Ansari @ Javed Ansari vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, bearing Criminal Appeal No. 2790 of 2024, decided on 18.07.2024 and Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra and another, bearing Criminal Appeal No. 2787 of 2024, decided on 03.07.2024.

5. Heard.

6. The allegations against the appellant are that he was allegedly involved in anti-national activities but only a mobile phone is alleged to have recovered from him which is stated to have contained objectionable photographs of arms and ammunition etc. There is no other recovery either of firearms or any other incriminating material at this stage. The appellant is in custody for over 3 years and 8 months.

7. Article 21 of the Constitution of India enshrines the fundamental right to protection of life and liberty which also includes the right to speedy trial, which is sacrosanct. It has been held by the Supreme Court in a catena of judgments that long custody by itself would entitle the accused under UAPA to the grant of bail by invoking Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The appellant is in custody for about 03 years and 08 months. The Constitutional Court would like to prevent a situation where the lengthy and arduous process of trial, becomes the punishment in itself. Reference can be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India versus K.A. Najeeb (supra) wherein it has been held that long custody would be an essential factor while granting bail under UAPA. Article 21 of the Constitution of India provides right to speedy trial and long period of incarceration would be a good ground to grant bail to an under-trial for an offence punishable under UAPA. It has also been held that the embargo under Section 43- D of UAPA would not negate the powers of the Court to give effect to Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The relevant extract of the judgment is reproduced hereunder:

“It is thus clear to us that the presence of statutory restrictions like Section 43-D(5) of UAPA per se does not oust the abili