Connect with us

Hi, what are you looking for?

Judiciary

Supreme Court Grants Bail Under UAPA, Distinguishing Watali Case

Last Updated on July 22, 2024 by News Desk

In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court granted bail to an accused under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA), emphasizing that the precedent set in the case of NIA v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali should not automatically be used to deny bail in cases where the accused has experienced prolonged incarceration.

The Supreme Court highlighted that the Watali case’s decision to revoke bail was based on specific circumstances. In that instance, the High Court had effectively conducted a mini-trial, overturning the trial court’s initial findings against granting bail. This, the Supreme Court noted, was not applicable as a blanket rule for all UAPA cases.

The bench, comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, set aside the Allahabad High Court’s order denying bail to the appellant, who had been in undertrial custody for nine years. The Supreme Court referred to the case of Union of India v. KA Najeeb, which stressed that statutory restrictions on bail under the UAPA should not infringe upon constitutional rights. The Court acknowledged that while the severity of the charges is important, the prolonged detention of an undertrial and the improbability of a swift trial completion are valid grounds for granting bail.

The Supreme Court concurred with the three-judge bench in the KA Najeeb case, which had differentiated the Watali judgment. In Watali, the bail was revoked because the High Court had conducted a detailed examination of evidence, which exceeded the limited scope of a bail hearing under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA. The Supreme Court underscored that the Watali decision should be understood in its specific context and not used broadly to deny bail to undertrials enduring extended incarceration without foreseeable trial conclusion.

This ruling reaffirms the Supreme Court’s stance that constitutional rights and the principles of justice should prevail over stringent statutory provisions, ensuring that long-term undertrials under the UAPA are not unjustly denied bail.

Written By — Athi Venkatesh

Written By

Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Related Posts

High Court

It was opined by the larger bench that it can be a violation of the fair trial as the accused is presumed innocent until...

High Court

When the presumption is raised under section 113-A, the prosecution must show that there was cruelty and continuous harassment.

High Court

The Calcutta High Court directs the CBI to investigate offensive social media comments about the victim in the RG Kar rape-murder case, with cooperation...

High Court

Madras High Court confirms conviction in sports sexual harassment case, directs a series of protective measures for woman athletes. A safe environment, says the...