Today(on 13th August), The Supreme Court of India granted bail to a 61-year-old former police officer charged under the UAPA, highlighting the principle that “bail is the rule, jail is the exception.” The accused was allegedly linked to the Popular Front of India (PFI), an organization accused of inciting violence.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: Today(on 13th August), the Supreme Court granted bail to a 61-year-old former police officer who had been charged under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA). The charges stemmed from his alleged involvement as an active member of the Popular Front of India (PFI), a group accused of aiming to incite violence and establish Islamic rule in India.
The decision was made by a Bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and Augustine George Masih, who emphasized the importance of upholding the legal principle that “bail is the rule, jail is the exception,” even in cases involving special statutes like the UAPA.
Bail is the Rule, Jail the Exception
The Bench highlighted the necessity of applying this principle across all cases, including those prosecuted under stringent laws like the UAPA.
“Bail is the rule, jail the exception, even under special statutes.”
-the Court asserted.
They further elaborated-
“When a case justifies granting bail, courts should do so without hesitation.”
While acknowledging the seriousness of the prosecution’s allegations, the Justices stressed that the judiciary’s responsibility is to evaluate each case strictly according to the law.
“While the prosecution’s allegations may be serious, the court’s duty is to assess the case strictly according to the law.”
– they noted.
They also warned that denying bail in deserving cases could lead to a violation of fundamental rights, specifically under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
“Denying bail in deserving cases violates fundamental rights under Article 21. Therefore, we have granted bail,”
– the Court concluded.
Background of the Case
The case against the appellant and a co-accused centers on the allegation that the former cop had rented out the upper floor of his residence to the co-accused, who were purportedly planning to orchestrate disturbances during a visit by Prime Minister Narendra Modi to Bihar in 2022. Before any potential disruption could occur, the police intervened, apprehending the individuals involved. Subsequently, they were charged with criminal conspiracy and promoting enmity among different groups.
ALSO READ: Former Supreme Court Justice Madan B. Lokur Asks for Revival of ‘Bail, Not Jail’ Principle
During the course of the investigation, police officials recovered documents from the accused that were related to unlawful activities. These documents allegedly contained plans aimed at undermining India’s sovereignty, inciting disaffection against the country, and establishing a pan-Islamic rule by subverting the Constitution. Given the serious nature of the accusations, the case was transferred to the National Investigating Agency (NIA), and the individuals involved were charged under the UAPA.
During the trial proceedings, both the appellant and his co-accused sought bail from the Special Court. However, their requests were denied. Dissatisfied with this outcome, they appealed to the Patna High Court. While the High Court eventually granted bail to the co-accused, it rejected the bail plea of the former cop, leading him to approach the Supreme Court for relief.
