Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(P&H) 1297

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL, LAPITA BANERJI, JJ.
Rameez Raja - Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab - Respondent
CRA-D. No. 623 of 2023
Decided On : 21-11-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appearing Parties : Mr. M.S. Basra Adv. , Mr. H.S. Sullar Sr. DAG, Punjab

Long custody without trial can justify bail under UAPA, emphasizing the right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Headnote:(A) Arms Act, 1959 - Section 25 - Explosive Substances Act, 1908 - Sections 3, 4, 5 - Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 - Sections 13, 17, 18, 18-B, 20 - Bail application dismissed by Additional Sessions Judge - Appellant alleged to be involved in anti-national activities without recovery of incriminating material - Long custody and absence of evidence cited as grounds for bail. (Paras 1, 2, 12)

(B) Right to speedy trial - Article 21 of the Constitution of India - Long custody can entitle an accused to bail under UAPA - Statutory restrictions do not negate constitutional rights. (Paras 7, 10)

(C) Conditions for bail - Court may impose conditions to ensure appearance and prevent tampering with evidence. (Paras 12, 13)

Facts of the case:
The appellant, an undertrial dentist, was arrested under serious charges including UAPA. He has been in custody for about 2 years without recovery of arms or incriminating evidence against him. Co-accused were granted bail.

Findings of Court:
The appeal is allowed, and the appellant is granted bail subject to conditions, as the trial is not progressing and the appellant's continued detention is unjustified.

Issues: The main issues were the justification for denying bail based on serious allegations and the implications of long custody without trial.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that long custody without trial can violate the right to life and liberty under Article 21, warranting bail despite serious allegations. The court also noted that statutory provisions should not infringe upon constitutional rights.

Result: Appeal allowed; appellant granted bail.

JUDGMENT :

Mr. Anupinder Singh Grewal, J.:-The appellant has challenged the order dated 21.04.2023 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pathankot whereby his bail application in FIR No.116 dated 11.06.2020, registered under Section 25 of Arms Act, 1959 & Sections 3, 4, 5 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and 13, 17, 18, 18-B, 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 [for short, UAPA’], at Police Station Sadar Pathankot, has been dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant, inter alia, submits that the appellant was confined in jail in Jammu and Kashmir as undertrial when he was involved in the instant case. The allegations against him are that he was in touch with the co-accused and a Pakistani national through Conion Application. He is alleged to be involved in several anti-national activities including arrangement of financial aid. He, however, submits that no recovery of any arm and ammunition or any other incriminating material has been effected from him. The allegations pertaining to the aforenoted electronic evidence are unsubstantiated and no such evidence in the form of transcripts were produced on record. He also submits that sanction under Section 45 of the UAPA had not been obtained qua the appellant. The appellant is a Dentist by profession and is in custody for about 2 years. The co-accused Amir Hussain Wani and Waseem Hussain Wani have been granted regular bail by the Single Bench of this Court in CRM-M-40907-2020 on 08.02.2021.

3. 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 versus K.A. Najeeb, (2021) 3 SCC 713 and Shoma Kanti Sen versus 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 versus The State of Maharashtra and another, 2023 SCC Online 885, Sheikh Javed Iqbal @ Ashfaq Ansari @ Javed Ansari versus State of Uttar Pradesh, bearing Criminal Appeal No.2790 of 2024, decided on 18.07.2024 and Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh versus State of Maharashtra, another bearing Criminal Appeal No.2787 of 2024, decided on 03.07.2024.

4. Learned counsel for the State while referring to reply submits that recovery of arms and ammunition was effected from co-accused Amir Hussain Wani and Waseem Hussain Wani. They were in touch with their handlers in Pakistan and there is a transcript in that regard. The appellant was in constant touch with both of them. He further submits that two out of seven prosecution witnesses have been examined. He therefore submits that in view of the serious allegations, he is not entitled to the concession of regular bail.

5. Heard.

6. The allegations against the appellant are that he was in touch with the co-accused and a Pakistani national through Conion Application. He had also arranged money and indulged in anti-national activities. No recovery of arms and ammunition or any other incriminating material has been effected from him. The allegations pertaining to the aforenoted electronic evidence are unsubstantiated and no such evidence in the form of transcripts were produced on record. Sanction under Section 45 of the UAPA had also not been obtained qua the appellant. The appellant is a Dentist by profession and is in custody for about 2 years.

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 Constitutional Court would like to prevent a situation where the lengthy and arduous process of trial, becomes a pun