Summary
The Supreme Court upheld bail for a UAPA accused after more than five years in custody with 276 witnesses still to be examined and no realistic prospect of timely completion. Statutory bail restrictions did not oust constitutional courts’ power to remedy violation of the right to a speedy trial. The ruling did not decide the accusations on merits. Additional reporting and conduct conditions were imposed, with liberty to cancel bail for breach or obstruction of trial.
Issues
- Whether the UAPA bail restriction prevented constitutional relief for prolonged incarceration and unlikely timely completion of trial.
- Whether the High Court’s bail decision warranted interference on the particular custody and trial circumstances.
Provisions considered
- Article 21, Constitution of IndiaThe right to liberty encompasses access to justice and a speedy trial. Constitutional courts may grant bail where prolonged incarceration and the absence of a realistic timely trial infringe that guarantee. (¶¶ 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19)
- Section 43D(5), Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967The statutory restriction remains relevant, especially at the outset, but does not displace constitutional judicial power to protect fundamental rights where trial delay and substantial incarceration make continued detention unjustified. (¶¶ 5, 7, 11, 17, 18, 19, 20)
Held
- The High Court granted bail on prolonged custody and delay, rather than by finding the accusations untrue. The Supreme Court distinguished Watali, which concerned impermissible merits reappraisal at the bail stage. (¶¶ 11, 17, 18)
- The accused had spent over five years in custody, charges had only recently been framed, and 276 witnesses remained. The co-accused’s sentences and the improbability of an early conclusion reinforced the liberty concern on this record. (¶¶ 15, 16, 19)
- Statutory restrictions and constitutional powers must be harmonized. The decision does not grant automatic bail after a fixed period; it responds to the substantial custody already suffered and the prospects of completion in the circumstances. (¶¶ 16, 18, 19)
- In addition to trial-court conditions, the accused was to report every Monday at 10 a.m., provide the specified written declaration and refrain from activities inflaming communal sentiments. Breach, tampering, witness influence or obstruction could justify immediate cancellation by the Special Court. (¶ 21)
Result
Union appeal dismissed subject to additional bail conditions; the High Court’s grant of bail upheld without determination of guilt.