In a significant ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has granted bail to a man charged under the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), emphasizing that bail cannot be denied merely on the basis of serious allegations if there is no prima facie case established. This decision underscores the court’s commitment to ensuring fair legal processes, even in cases involving grave charges.
Also read- Punjab And Haryana High Court Rules: Live-In Without Divorce Equals Bigamy (lawchakra.in)
The division bench, comprising Acting Chief Justice Ritu Bahri and Justice Manisha Batra, observed,
“On the basis of allegations as levelled against the appellant, prima facie no case can be stated to have been made out to presume that there had been any conspiracy between the appellant and the co-accused to form membership of a terrorist gang and to commit acts against the interest of the nation.”
This statement highlights the court’s careful consideration of the evidence presented in the case.
The court further noted,
“The statute of UAP Act has stringent provisions but that makes the duty of the Court to be more onerous and it is well settled that merely because allegations were serious, on that reason alone, bail cannot be denied.”
This reflects the judiciary’s stance on balancing the severity of allegations with the principles of justice and fair trial.
The case involved Gursewak Singh, who was arrested in 2020 under various sections of the IPC, UAPA, Arms Act, and Prisons Act. It was alleged that Singh was part of a gang planning terrorist acts in different parts of the country and was involved in a gold robbery. However, the court noted that no specific role had been attributed to Singh in these activities.
Also read- Supreme Court Directs PFI To High Court For Challenge Against UAPA Ban (lawchakra.in)
The bench also pointed out procedural lapses, stating,
“Admittedly, the sanction for prosecution of the appellant and co-accused in this case had not been granted by the competent authority till the date of presentation of the challan and it was accorded later and then the said sanction is shown to have been filed in the Court along with supplementary challan report. It is, therefore, debatable as to whether the Court was even competent to take cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 16, 17, 18, and 18B of UAP Act till the date when sanction was granted under Section 45 of UAP Act.”
Considering Singh’s prolonged custody since July 2020 and the slow pace of the trial, the court granted him bail. This decision sets aside the order of the Special Court, which had previously rejected the bail application.
This ruling by the Punjab and Haryana High Court is a reminder of the judiciary’s role in safeguarding individual rights and ensuring that legal procedures are not bypassed, even in cases involving serious allegations under laws like the UAPA.
