Long pre-trial incarceration, exceeding a significant portion of possible sentencing, violates the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution, providing valid grounds to grant bail in UAPA cases despite statutory restrictions under Section 43-D(5).

Anupinder Singh Grewal, J. (Oral)

The appellant has challenged the judgment dated 24.10.2024 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 3 , 4, 5 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908, Sections 3 07, 212, 427, 120-B IPC; Sections 13, 16, 17, 18, 18-B, 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (for short ‘UAPA’) and Sections 25, 25(6), 25(7), 25(8)-54-59 of the Arms Act at Police Station City Nawanshahr, has been dismissed.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant, who is 29 years of age, was not named in the FIR and had been arraigned as an accused on the allegation that he had given shelter to the co-accused, namely, Kuldeep Kumar @ Sunny, who had thrown explosive material outside the office of the CIA Staff, Nawanshahr. The water cooler kept outside as well as the glass windowpanes were damaged but no person was injured. He further submits that the appellant has been in custody for 03 years, 06 months & 14 days and the co-accused, namely, Manish Kumar @ Baba, Jivtesh Sethi and Pardeep Bhatti have been granted the benefit of regular bail by this Court in CRA-D-653-2023, CRA-D-1060-2023 and CRA-D-486-2023, after they had been in custody for 02 years, 04 months & 17 days; 02 years, 04 months & 27 days and 02 years, 05 months & 03 days on 17.09.2024, 03.10.2024 and 03.10.2024 respectively. 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 SCCOnline SC 498, wherein by invoking Article 21 of the Constitution of India, it has been held that long pre-trial incarceration by itself would entitle the accused under UAPA to grant of bail. He has also cited the judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Vernon versus The State of Maharashtra and another, 2023 SCCOnline 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.

Learned State counsel submits that the appellant had given shelter to the co-accused, namely, Kuldeep Kumar @ Sunny at his house and had also arranged a Taxi for him to go to Chandigarh. He further submits that in his disclosure statement, the appellant had admitted that he had concealed certain explosive material in a well. During the investigation, the police had discovered that the material had exploded and the remains of exploded material had been recovered. He further submits that the appellant is also involved in another case under the NDPS Act and 27 of the 50 prosecution witnesses have been examined. He has filed the custody certificate which indicates that the appellant has been in custody for 03 years, 06 months & 14 days. He, therefore, submits that in view of the serious allegations against the appellant, he is not entitled to the concession of bail.

Heard.

The allegations against the appellant are that he had given shelter to the co-accused and had facilitated his travel to Chandigarh. Pursuant to his disclosure statement, the remains of the explosive material, which had already exploded had been recovered from a well. No person had been injured in the occurrence. 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 sufficient ground justifying his further incarceration, especially when the three co-accused had been extended the benefit of regular bail after they had been in custody for over two years. The appellant has been in custody for 03 years, 06 months & 14 days.

Article 21 of the Constitution of India enshrines the fundam