Long custody can justify bail under UAPA, emphasizing the right to a speedy trial as per Article 21.

JUDGMENT :

Anupinder Singh Grewal, J. (Oral)

The appellant has challenged the order dated 27.04.2023 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar whereby his bail application in FIR No.241 dated 08.11.2021, registered under Sections 307, 427, 212, 120-B IPC; Sections 6 , 7, 8 of the Explosive Substance Act ; Sections 13 , 16, 17, 18, 18-B, 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (for short ' UAPA ') and Section 25 /54/59 of the Arms Act at Police Station City Nawanshahr, has been dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was not named in the FIR and has been arraigned as an accused on the statement of co-accused Pardeep Singh who had stated that the appellant was driving the motorcycle while the pillion rider co-accused Ramandeep Singh had thrown the explosive material outside the office of the CIA Staff, Nawanshahr. The water cooler kept outside the office and glass window panes were stated to have been damaged in the blast. No person was injured due to the occurrence. Besides the statement of co-accused, there is no material which would connect the appellant with the commission of the offence. No recovery has been effected from him except a mobile phone. The appellant has been in custody for 02 years, 04 months & 17 days. He has relied 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.

3. Learned State counsel has filed the custody certificate which indicates that the appellant is in custody for 02 years, 04 months & 17 days. He submits that the appellant was driving the motorcycle while the pillion rider had thrown the explosive substance and in view of the serious allegations against the appellant, he is not entitled to the concession of bail. He, upon instructions, submits that 12 out of 50 prosecution witnesses have been examined.

4. Heard.

5. The allegation against the appellant is that he was driving the motorcycle while the pillion rider had thrown the explosive substance based on the disclosure statement of co-accused. However, there does not seem to be any other material which would connect the appellant with the commission of the offence especially when no incriminating material either in the form of arms, explosives or any dubious bank transaction indicating the financial motive has surfaced at this stage. We are conscious of the fact that the conditions for granting bail to an accused under UAPA are stringent. However, at the same time, it is the duty of the Court to carefully scrutinize the material against the appellant. We do not find adequate material against the appellant which would justify his further incarceration. The appellant has been in custody for 02 years, 04 months & 17 days.

6. 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 sacr