In a significant legal analysis, the Court granted bail in a case involving special enactments after almost 8 years of incarceration. The decision comes after a thorough evaluation of the evidence presented and the stringent conditions for bail under special legislations. This landmark ruling demonstrates the Court’s commitment to ensuring justice and upholding the principles of fairness in legal proceedings.
Facts
- Appellant was arrested on 08.05.2014 in connection with FIR 113/2014 of Police Station Pratapnagar, Jodhpur under various sections of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.
- Appellant has been in custody for almost 8 years.
- Complaint noted that evidence of not even a single witness out of 180 cited by the prosecution was complete.
- High Court rejected the appellant’s bail application under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.
- Only 6 witnesses have been examined, with the seventh witness under examination.
- Report indicated that it may take 2 to 3 more years for the disposal of the case.
- Charges were framed against the appellant on 29.01.2018.
- The impugned order passed on 04.02.2022 is being reviewed.
- The RLC for this particular case is being considered.
- Further detailed analysis of the RLC is required.
Also Read: Legal Analysis of Assignment and Ratification in Property Law
Arguments
- Ms. Pragati Neekra, counsel for the State, does not dispute the fact that there are 109 witnesses.
- The appellant, an undertrial prisoner, has already been in incarceration for a considerable period.
- Learned counsel for the State confirms the total of 109 witnesses for the prosecution.
- The petitioner has been in custody for almost 8 years since 08.05.2014.
- Despite efforts for early disposal of the trial, it is estimated to take 2-3 more years due to various factors.
- Three witnesses have expressed concerns about their safety while testifying against the accused.
- Petitioner’s counsel argues there is no material against the petitioner.
- State’s counsel argues that serious offences are alleged and bail may not be granted.
- State is taking effective steps for an early disposal of the trial.
- Court orders the examination of the three concerned witnesses on a priority basis.
- Affidavit by the State indicates a total of 110 witnesses will be deposing, with statements of three witnesses already recorded.
Also Read: Interpretation of Custody in Contempt of Court Case
Analysis
- Special legislations like the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 and the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 have rigorous conditions for grant of bail.
- The Supreme Court, in various cases such as Paramjit Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi), Babba v. State of Maharashtra, and Umarmia v. State of Gujarat, has granted bail to accused who have been in jail for an extended period without early completion of trial.
- Harsh conditions for bail in special enactments have been justified on the grounds of ensuring speedy trials to protect innocent civilians.
- Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA is considered relatively less stringent compared to Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
- The appellant has been in custody as an undertrial prisoner for nearly 8 years.
- The appellant is charged with offenses punishable by a minimum of 10 years imprisonment and may extend to life imprisonment.
- One of the co-accused, Shri Aadil Ansari, has been granted bail by the Court on 30.09.2020.
- The conditions in Section 43D(5) of the Act of 1967 are considered less stringent compared to other Acts like the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
- Considering the nature of the case, evidence presented, and the prolonged incarceration of the appellant, it is deemed appropriate to grant bail.
- The prosecution intends to examine 109 witnesses, of which only 6 have been fully examined so far.
Also Read: NGT Jurisdiction and High Courts’ Role
Decision
- The Court issued notice in the matter on 29.09.2021
- Additional District and Sessions Judge, No 3, Jodhpur City, directed to send a report on when the trial can be concluded
- The appeal is allowed as per the signed reportable order
- Pending applications have been disposed of
- The appeal is allowed, the impugned order is set aside, and the appellant is directed to be released on bail with conditions set by the trial Court
- Observations in the order are made specifically for deciding the bail application
- The Court will base its decision on the evidence and the law during the trial
- The case is listed for 10 January 2022
- A report is called for from the Additional District and Sessions Judge, No. 3, Jodhpur City, on the time needed to conclude the trial
- The petitioner is allowed to file an affidavit in reply to the State’s affidavit as ordered
Case Title: JAHIR HAK Vs. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN (2022 INSC 412)
Case Number: Crl.A. No.-000605-000605 / 2022
