LI Network
Published on: February 8, 2024 at 14:10 IST
In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court provided a comprehensive explanation of the principles governing bail applications in cases under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA).
The Court dismissed an appeal challenging the rejection of a bail application by the Trial Court, a decision upheld by the High Court.
The Bench, comprising Justice M. M. Sundresh and Justice Aravind Kumar, emphasized that bail is the exception and jail is the rule in UAPA cases.
The Court stated, “Bail must be rejected as a ‘rule’ if, after hearing the public prosecutor and perusing the final report or Case Diary, the Court concludes that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusations are prima facie true. It is only if the test for rejection of bail is not satisfied that the Courts would proceed to decide the bail application in accordance with the ‘tripod test’ (flight risk, influencing witnesses, tampering with evidence).”
The appeal challenged the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which upheld the rejection of bail for Gurwinder Singh in a case involving charges under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), UAPA, and Arms Act, 1959. The allegations against the accused included receiving funds from a banned terrorist organization and attempting to procure weapons for terrorist activities.
The Trial Court denied bail based on the seriousness of the charges and the absence of examination of protected witnesses.
The Court highlighted Section 43D(5) of the UAPA, which alters the usual bail provisions for offenses under Chapter IV and Chapter VI of the UAP Act.
This section mandates that a Special Court cannot grant bail without giving the Public Prosecutor an opportunity to be heard. Additionally, if the court, after reviewing the case diary or the report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, finds reasonable grounds to believe the accusations are prima facie true, bail must be denied.
The Bench emphasized that bail restrictions under Section 43D(5) are supplementary to those under the CrPC or any other applicable law. It outlined a twin-prong test for bail applications under the UAPA:
- Whether the test for rejection of bail is satisfied: 1.1 Examine if, prima facie, the alleged ‘accusations’ make out an offense under Chapter IV or VI of the UAP Act. 1.2 Such examination should be limited to the case diary and final report submitted under Section 173 CrPC.
- Whether the accused deserves to be enlarged on bail in light of the general principles relating to grant of bail under Section 439 CrPC (‘tripod test’): 2.1 Whether the accused is a flight risk? 2.2. Whether there is apprehension of the accused tampering with the evidence? 2.3 Whether there is apprehension of accused influencing witnesses?
The Court emphasized that even if the first test is met, it does not automatically entitle the accused to bail. The accused must demonstrate that they pass the “tripod test,” involving additional considerations beyond those of the first test.
Referring to guidelines laid down in the Watali case, the Supreme Court clarified the meaning of ‘prima facie true,’ the degree of satisfaction at different stages, reasoning during bail hearings, and the duration of limitations under Section 43D(5).
In conclusion, the Court noted that the appellant failed to rebut the prima facie evidence implicating him in terrorist activities, and therefore, bail wasn’t warranted. The appeal was dismissed.
Case Title: Gurwinder Singh v State Of Punjab & Another (2024 INSC 92)
