In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court stood firm on denying bail to an individual charged under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (“UAPA”) for allegedly promoting the Khalistani terror movement. The court’s decision, handed down by Justices MM Sundresh and Aravind Kumar, emphasized the gravity of the accusations, stating that mere trial delays cannot justify bail in cases involving serious offenses.
The bench stressed, “…material on record prima facie indicates the complicity of the accused as a part of the conspiracy since he was knowingly facilitating the commission of a preparatory act towards the commission of a terrorist act under section 18 of the UAP Act…mere delay in trial pertaining to grave offences as one involved in the instant case cannot be used as a ground to grant bail”.
The appellant’s reliance on the Court’s precedent in Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb, LL 2021 SC 56, asserting the right to a speedy trial as grounds for bail in UAPA cases, was dismissed by the Court. It distinguished this case from Najeeb’s, highlighting that Najeeb’s trial had been separated from the rest of the accused, whereas the appellant’s trial was already underway with several witnesses examined.
The Court also underscored the appellant’s alleged involvement in terrorist activities, including the exchange of substantial sums of money through various channels. Concerns about potential witness tampering if the appellant were released on bail were deemed valid by the Court.
Despite the appellant’s argument that his name was not mentioned in the terror funding chart and no incriminating evidence was found on his phone, the Court maintained that this did not absolve him of his purported role in the crime.
The case traces back to the discovery of banners promoting Khalistan near an Amritsar flyover, leading to the exposure of the banned organization “Sikhs for Justice.” The appellant, along with others, was arrested on charges related to funding terrorist activities and attempting to procure weapons for separatist endeavors.
The Supreme Court’s decision, rooted in a comprehensive analysis of previous rulings, reaffirms the stringent criteria for bail under UAPA. Despite arguments from both sides, the Court concluded that the appellant’s appeal for bail lacked merit in light of the serious nature of the charges and the potential risks associated with his release.
