Today, On 18th July, The Supreme Court ruled that the slow progress of a trial cannot be a reason to deny bail to an accused under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), despite the Watali judgment. In the Watali case, the Court had determined that bail in UAPA cases should not be granted based solely on a prima facie assessment of the evidence supporting the allegations.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that its 2019 decision in the Watali case, concerning bail under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA), does not prevent courts from granting bail when the criminal trial progressing slowly.
In the Watali case, the Supreme Court established that bail in UAPA cases cannot be granted based solely on prima facie satisfaction of the evidence supporting the allegations.
Read Also: Supreme Court Permits Withdrawal of Petitions Contesting Constitutionality of UAPA
Justices JB Pardiwala and Ujjal Bhuyan emphasized that the Watali judgment should be interpreted within its specific context and should not serve as a blanket precedent to deny bail to undertrial prisoners experiencing prolonged incarceration without foreseeable trial completion.
The Court reiterated the principle that an accused is entitled to a speedy trial, particularly in serious charge cases.
They stated,
“If the alleged offence is a serious one, it is all the more necessary for the prosecution to ensure that the trial is concluded expeditiously. When a trial gets prolonged, it is not open to the prosecution to oppose bail of the accused-undertrial on the ground that the charges are very serious. Bail cannot be denied only on the ground that the charges are very serious though there is no end in sight for the trial to conclude.”
In a judgment delivered earlier today, the Court observed that restrictive clauses in stringent penal statutes like the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) do not prohibit the granting of bail.
Consequently, the Bench granted bail to a man accused of counterfeiting Indian currency under the UAPA. The man had been in jail since his arrest by the Anti-Terrorist Squad (ATS) of Uttar Pradesh in 2015.
The apex court remarked,
“A constitutional court cannot be restrained from granting bail to an accused due to restrictive statutory provisions in a penal statute if it finds that the right of the accused-undertrial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India has been infringed. In such cases, these statutory restrictions should not impede the granting of bail. To claim that bail cannot be granted under a specific statute would contradict the core principles of our constitutional jurisprudence.”
Read Also: Supreme Court Grants UAPA Challenge Petitioners Time to Decide on High Court Approach
Advocates M S Khan, Tripurari Ray, Balwant Singh Billowria, Anirudh Ray, Qusar Khan, Akshay Singh, Vivekanand Singh, and Manu Shanker Mishra represented the accused.
Senior Additional Advocate General Garima Prasad, along with advocates Shaurya Sahay and Shobhit Dwivedi, represented the State of Uttar Pradesh.
Read Judgement: [Sheikh Javed Iqbal @ Ashfaq Ansari @ Javed Ansari v State of Uttar Pradesh].