Supreme Court Upholds Bail as Norm, Even in UAPA Cases
Last Updated on August 13, 2024 by NewsDesk SLC
The Supreme Court, in a recent judgment, has reaffirmed the innate principle that the ‘right to be let off on bail’ is much more cherished than the ‘right to remain in custody’ especially under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA). The Court recently bailed out a 61-years old ex-cop accused of having links with the Popular Front of India (PFI), pointing that there needed to be a fine balance between public safety and the protection of individuals.
The case involved allegations of the accused in engaging in the planning of the disruption of peace in the community with the intention of ushering in an Islamic state. However, the Supreme Court observed that the lower courts erred in concentrating more on the performance of the PFI rather than specific evidence against the accused persons. The Court also noted that at the time when the alleged offenses were committed, the accused was not part of the group which was unlawful and hence questioned whether UAPA provisions are to be applied in this case.
This judgment is a good reminder that even where there is a credible allegation that a person has committed a serious offence, the principle of “innocent until proven guilty” must remain relevant. The Court handled the case with a lot of scrutiny as well as sticking to legal set of procedures and standards that were admirable. Therefore, through this ruling, the Court has not only safeguarded the rights of the accused but also in a process reinforced the much-needed assertiveness of the judiciary arm on the matter of defending fundamental freedoms.
This ruling might substantially alter how UAPA cases are managed in the future, compelling the courts to be more cautious when dealing with bail. Though, recognizing the threat some crimes might pose, the Supreme Court decision emphasizes the freedom of judicial discretion and the problem of unfair arrest. This is an important move that would prevent the authorities from using stringent laws to infringe on individuals’ rights.
Given that the country has for long been struggling to strike a balance between national security and individual rights, this judgment can be said to be given with a lot of wisdom. It re-emphasizes the continued commitment of the judiciary to the fight against the violation of the Constitution and other laws of the country as well as the provision of equal and merciful justice to all persons.
Case Law: Jalaluddin Khan vs Union of India
Written By: Amit Kumar Patra
