Punjab and Haryana High Court grants bail to man accused of engaging in ‘anti-national activities’ with Pakistani national

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has granted bail to a man charged under the stringent Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) for allegedly being in contact with a Pakistani national and arranging money for “anti-national activities”.

The court held that no recovery of arms and ammunition or any other incriminating material was made from him and in custody for about 2 years.

Justice Anupinder Singh Grewal and Justice Lapita Banerji said, “Article 21 of the Constitution of India enshrines the fundamental right to protection of life and liberty, which includes the right to speedy trial, which is sacrosanct. The Supreme Court has held in a series of judgments that prolonged custody would entitle the accused under the UAPA to grant of bail by invoking Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Constitutional Court would like to prevent a situation where the long and arduous trial becomes a punishment in itself..”

These observations were made during the hearing of the bail application of Rameez Raja, who was booked under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 and Sections 3, 4, 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and 13, 17, 18, 18-B, 20 of the UAPA.

It was alleged that Raja was in touch with the co-accused and a Pakistani national through the Conion app. He was allegedly involved in several anti-national activities, including providing financial aid.

Raja’s counsel submitted that no recovery of arms and ammunition or any other incriminating material was made from him. The allegations relating to the electronic evidence referred to above are unfounded and no such evidence has been produced in the form of transcripts.

He also pointed out that sanction under section 45 of UAPA was not obtained as appellant.

After hearing the submissions, the Court referred to Union of India versus KA Najeeb, wherein the Apex Court held that long custody would be an essential factor while granting bail under the UAPA. Article 21 of the Constitution of India provides for the right to speedy trial and a long period of imprisonment would be a good reason to grant bail to a person on trial for an offense punishable under the UAPA.

It was also argued that the embargo under Section 43-D of the UAPA would not take away the powers of the Court to give effect to Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

It was based on a recent case of Shoma Kanti Sen Vs. State of Maharashtrain which the Court granted bail to former Nagpur University professor Shoma Sen, who is booked under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967 (UAPA) for alleged Maoist links in connection with the Bhima Koregaon case.

The Court also referred Vernon v. State of Maharashtra and another to emphasize that serious allegations against the accused in itself cannot be a ground for denying bail to the accused.

Referring to the chain of judgments of the Supreme Court, the Court held that no recovery of arms and ammunition or any other incriminating material was made from him, he was in custody for about 2 years, co-accused Amir Hussain Wani and Waseem Hussain. Wani has been granted regular bail and the end of the trial is not in sight as only two of seven prosecution witnesses have been examined.

Considering the above, the Court admitted the exception and imposed certain conditions/

MS Basra, Lawyer for the plaintiff/appellant.

HS Sullar, Senior DAG, Punjab.

Click here to read/download the order