Pre-trial detention does not automatically warrant bail; substantial evidence needed to prohibit bail under UAPA, particularly when serious charges involve potential interference with justice.

JUDGMENT

(Order of the Court was delivered by SUNDER MOHAN, J.

The instant appeal has been preferred by the accused/A15, challenging the order passed in Crl.MP No.1312 of 2023 in Spl.S.C.No.9 of 2022 dated 24.07.2023, by the learned Judge, Special Court under the National Investigation Agency (Sessions Court under Exclusive Trial of Bomb Blast Cases), Chennai, dismissing the bail application filed by him.

2. The appeal arises under the following circumstances.

(i) The appellant is the accused in Spl.S.C.No.9 of 2022 for the offences under Section 4(i) r/w 4(a)(b) and 6 of the Explosives Act , 1908, 25(1-B) (a) of the Arms Act , 1959, Sec. 16, 17 and 18 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (hereinafter referred to as the UA (P) Act), 1967, 153(A), 109 r/w 120(b) of the IPC. He was originally arrested in Crime No.118 of 2013 on the file of Vayalikaval Police Station, Bangalore and is in judicial custody ever since then. The respondent found that the petitioner was involved in the instant case and filed a final report against him, before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tirunelveli, showing him as absconding. Thereafter on PT warrant he was produced and formal arrest was shown as 22.01.2016.

(ii) It is the case of the prosecution that all the accused conspired under the leadership of the appellant to teach a lesson to the Government for not releasing the muslim convicts suffering sentence in various prisons and to create disharmony, disturb public order and tranquillity with an intent to strike terror and annihilate the Hindu leaders in the name of Jihad. It is further alleged that incriminating materials such as gelatin explosives, electric detonators and huge quantity of explosives were seized from the co- accused and the appellant is said to be involved in the offence of conspiracy to achieve the aforesaid object.

(iii) The appellant filed a bail application before the trial Court in Crl.M.P.No.1312 of 2023. The respondent opposed it stating that they had committed offences falling under Chapters IV and VI of the UA (P) Act and therefore, the restriction under the proviso to Section 43 – D (5) of the UA (P) Act, is applicable to the appellant. The trial Court found that the accusation against the appellant is prima facie true and held that in view of the bar under Section 43 – D (5) of the UA (P) Act, he is not entitled to bail.

3. Mr.S.Manoharan, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there is no evidence to connect the appellant with the alleged offence of conspiracy except for the confession of co-accused; that the appellant is in custody from 2013; and that the trial is not likely to be completed in the near future as the prosecution has cited nearly 149 witnesses and had examined only 7 witnesses so far. Therefore, the learned counsel submitted that since no prima facie case is made out, the appellant is entitled to bail and in any case, since the appellant is in custody from 2013 and in this case from 2016, he is entitled to bail as per the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. K.A.Najeeb , reported in 2021 (3) SCC 713 .

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor per contra submitted that the appellant is involved in the offence of conspiracy and the prosecution has sufficient evidence to connect the appellant with the crime. He also submitted that since the appellant is involved in the offence falling under Chapters IV and VI of the UA (P) Act, he would not be entitled to bail and relied upon the recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gurwinder Singh v. State of Punjab & Another, reported in