The seriousness of the charges, delay in disposal of cases, and the likelihood of the accused evading trial are crucial factors in deciding bail applications under UAPA and NDPS Act.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A for the State.

2. The applicant has moved this first bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C in Crime No. 01 of 2015 under Section 489B, 489C of IPC and 16 UAP Act Police Station ATS U.P. District Lucknow.

3. It is submitted on behalf of the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected on 24.08.2016 by Additional Sessions Judge/ Special Judge (SC/ST) Act, Lucknow. The accused is in jail since 23.2.2015. The FIR was lodged against the applicant on 23.02.2015 at 14:35 pm by informant Inspector Tej Bahadur Singh under Section 121 A, 489B, 489C IPC in Crime No. 01 of 2015. The FIR was lodged with the delay of 19 hours without giving any explanation as to the cause of delay. According to the prosecution case huge quantity of fake Indian currency of the denomination of Rs. 1,000/-and 500 (totaling the sum of 26,03,500/-) were recovered from the possession of the applicant on 22.02.2015 at about 21:10 PM from Sanoli Nepal Border. He was arrested by Constable of ATS team and brought to ATS headquarter. The recovery memo was not prepared at the spot. The applicant has been arrested in contravention of the prescribed mandatory procedure of UAP Act, 1967. Under Section 4 of the said Act only officers of the designated authority are empowered to arrest however, in the present case constable conducted search and arrest. The mandatory provisions of Section 6 of National Investigating Agency Act 2000 are not complied with. The Recommendation and Sanction of Prosecution Rules, 2008 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 provides for a prescribed time limit for making a recommendation for prosecution sanction. In the present case recommendation is not been made to the authorized agencies. The opposite parties have not complied with the process of Section 6 of NIA Act and has been delaying the proceedings deliberately to illegally deprive the applicant of his right of liberty.

4. The investigating authority have not followed the mandatory provisions of Sub-rule 5 of Rule 6 of NIA Act. Relying upon the Apex Court judgment in Narinderjit Singh Sahni and others Vs. Union of India and others 2002 (2) SCC 210 learned counsel for the applicant submitted the aforesaid investigation was transferred to ATS Lucknow who filed the charge-sheet No. 2 of 2015 under Section 489 B, and 489 C of IPC and Section 121 A IPC was dropped from the charge-sheet. The second sanction order dated 13.01.2017 has been issued illegally and contrary to the settled principles of law. The applicant is young married family man having wife and child and he is the sole bread earner of the family with no criminal history. He has been falsely implicated by the prosecution as a result of false and fabricated story. He is in jail since the last eight years and there is no likelihood of tampering with the evidence by the applicant. There is no likelihood of absconding the applicant if he is released on bail he will cooperate with the trial.

5. During the argument learned counsel for the applicant restrained himself only to the ground of the period of incarceration and submitted that the applicant is in jail since the past eight year and the trial of the case is stayed vide order of the Apex Court. Learned counsel for the applicant has filed a supplementary affidavit stating therein that the applicant had moved discharged application before the Special Judge which was dismissed vide order dated 27.05.2016 which was subsequently challenged by the applicant by way of application No. 7528 fo 2018 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Hon’ble High Court while deciding the application No. 7528 of 2015 filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C found that the sanction given under the UAP Act was not as per the provision of Section 45(2) of the U.P.A Act and hence, the Hon’ble Court was pleased to drop the proceedings against the applicant