Summary
Cross-appeals against a Karnataka High Court order that granted bail to one UAPA accused (accused no.11) and refused it to another (accused no.20) in an NIA case. The Supreme Court declined to interfere with either part of the order, holding that the High Court's reasons were justified and reasonable, but, since the trial had not commenced after five and a half years of custody, directed the Trial Court to conclude it within two years.
Issues
- Whether the High Court's grant of bail to accused no.11, whose alleged links were with an organisation not banned under the Schedule to the UAPA, warranted interference.
- Whether the High Court's refusal of bail to accused no.20, found to be involved with banned terrorist organisations, warranted interference.
- What directions were called for where charges had not been framed and the trial had not commenced despite the accused being in custody for over five years.
Provisions considered
- Sections 18, 18A, 18B, 19, 20, 38, 39 and the Schedule, Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967The accused were charge-sheeted for offences under Sections 18, 18A, 20 and 39 UAPA (accused no.20 under Sections 18, 20 and 39) read with Section 120B IPC. For accused no.11, the Court accepted the High Court's view that the organisation he was alleged to be connected with, Al-Hind, is admittedly not banned under the Schedule to the UAPA, so attending its meetings would not prima facie amount to an offence. For accused no.20, the material showed involvement with banned terrorist organisations and operation of the dark web, justifying refusal of bail. (¶¶ 3.1, 3.3, 9, 11)
- Section 439, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The accused had sought bail under Section 439 CrPC before the Special Court, which rejected it; the High Court on appeal granted bail to accused no.11 and refused it to accused no.20. The Supreme Court treated the appeals as ones against grant or refusal of bail and declined to delve deep into the facts. (¶¶ 4, 5, 6, 8)
- Section 120B, Penal Code, 1860Criminal conspiracy was charged against both accused along with the UAPA offences; the Court did not separately examine the charge in deciding the bail appeals. (¶¶ 3.1, 3.3)
Held
- In appeals concerning the grant or refusal of bail, the Supreme Court will not delve deep into the facts and reasoning where the High Court has dealt with all aspects in detail and its reasons are justified and reasonable. (¶ 8)
- Grant of bail to accused no.11 was not interfered with: the charge-sheet allegations concerned his connection with Al-Hind, admittedly not a banned organisation under the Schedule to the UAPA, so attending its meetings would not prima facie constitute an offence; moreover the bail order was about three and a half years old, charges had not been framed and the accused had been in custody for about five and a half years. (¶¶ 9, 10)
- Refusal of bail to accused no.20 was justified, the High Court having found, on the material in the charge-sheet, his involvement with banned terrorist organisations, his active role in operating the dark web and assisting their members, and his involvement in another UAPA case (in which the Madras High Court had granted him bail). (¶¶ 11, 12)
- An accused cannot be allowed to languish in jail without a fair and speedy trial. With the trial not having commenced after five and a half years and over 100 prosecution witnesses, the Trial Court was directed to expedite and conclude the trial within two years, the prosecution to cooperate fully, and the accused on bail to cooperate, failing which the Trial Court or prosecuting agency may apply for cancellation of his bail. (¶ 13)
Result
Both appeals dismissed; High Court order granting bail to accused no.11 and refusing bail to accused no.20 upheld; Trial Court directed to conclude the trial within two years; liberty to seek cancellation of bail of accused no.11 if he delays the trial.