Granting of bail under UAPA

Context- Recently, the Supreme Court rejected bail under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) to Gurwinder Singh, an accused in an alleged Khalistan module.

The Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA), 1967

• About

• • • Enacted in 1967, UAPA is the first counter-terror regulation in India.
    • It was enacted to outlaw and penalise illegal and terrorist activities, which pose a danger to the integrity and sovereignty of India.
  • These activities consist of:
    • Aiding and abetting terrorists
    • Funding terrorists
    • Inciting anti-country wide feeling in the hundreds
    • Other unlawful activities towards the country

• Key provisions of UAPA

• Wide ranging powers to Central Govt

• • • • It provides huge-ranging powers to the Central Government to designate enterprises as terrorist firms
      • It additionally prescribes the penalties for taking part within the activities of such organizations.

• Applicability

• • • It is also applicable if the offences are committed outside India. Both Indian and foreign nationals can be charged.

• Timeline

• • • A charge sheet may be filed in maximum 180 days after the arrests.
    • The research must be completed within 90 days.
    • If investigation isn’t always completed with the stipulated time, the accused is eligible for default bail.

• Special court

• • • The act establishes a special court designated to conduct trials.

• Sanction to prosecute under UAPA

• • Section 45(1) of the UAPA says no court shall take cognizance of any offence under the Act without the preceding sanction of the primary or kingdom authorities or any officer authorised by them.
  • Under Section 45(2), the sanction for prosecution has to be accepted within a prescribed time only after thinking about the record by the competent authority.

2019 Amendment of UAPA

• • The original act became amended within the years 2004, 2008, 2013, and 2019 to growth its scope and ambit. 2019 amendment changed the following:

• Who may additionally commit terrorism:

• • • The modification moreover empowers the government to designate people as terrorists on equal grounds.

• Approval for seizure of assets by using NIA:

• • • The Amendment adds that if the research is conducted via an officer of the NIA, the approval of the Director General of NIA would be required for seizure of such assets.

• Insertion to schedule of treaties

• • The Act defines terrorist acts to include acts dedicated within the scope of any of the treaties listed in a schedule to the Act.
  • The Schedule lists nine treaties, which include the Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings (1997), and the Convention in opposition to Taking of Hostages (1979).
  • The Amendment provides any other treaty to the listing. This is the International Convention for Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism (2005).

Section 43D(5) of UAPA

• About

• • • This provision deals with the granting of bail to the terror accused. The provision makes grant of bail without a doubt not possible underneath UAPA.
    • The test for denying bail under the UAPA is that the court must be happy that a “prima facie” case exists against the accused.
      • It says that a person accused of violating the law under this Act can’t get bail unless the Public Prosecutor has a danger to speak about it.
      • If the court looks at the case diary and believes there are right reasons to assume the accusation is probably true, then the accused character can’t get bail.
      • The regulation states that if the court is based solely on the police’s version, the accused has to persuade the court  that it is now not reasonable to accept as true that the accusations are right at first sight.
      • By putting this burden on the accused, the fundamental idea in crook regulation that someone is harmless until confirmed responsible is changed in the UAPA framework.

• Supreme Court on Section 43D (5) of UAPA

• • In the case of Zahoor Ahmed Shah Watali, the Supreme Court in 2019 showed that courts must accept the state’s case without examining its merits while granting bail.
    • In other words, it directed courts no longer to analyse proof or occasions however take a look at the totality of the case supplied by way of the country at the same time as choosing bail petition.
  • In Union of India v K A Najeeb, January 2021, SC upheld the supply of bail below UAPA whilst the accused had gone through incarceration for a sizeable duration.
    • However, it regarded that bail under UAPA was an exception.
  • SC was of the view that the legislative coverage in opposition to supply of bail would not maintain ground if:
    • there is no likelihood of trial being finished inside an inexpensive time and
    • the duration of incarceration already undergone has handed a massive part of the prescribed sentence.
  • In this case, SC attempted to ensure that provisions like Section 43D(5) of UAPA is not used as the sole metric for the denial of bail.
  • It integrated the constitutional right to fast trial as a floor for granting bail.
  • In July 2023, the Supreme Court, inside the case of Vernon Gonsalves v State of Maharashtra, disagreed with the Watali ruling regarding how the “prima facie true” test needed to be applied.
    • The bench stated that the test would not be satisfied unless there is a fundamental evaluation of the evidence’s cost at some point of the bail examination, and the quality of proof convinces the court  of its well worth.
  • Since both the Watali and Gonsalves rulings came from benches with the equal range of judges, it remains to be seen how future benches will use the test.
  • If there’s significant disagreement between different two-judge benches, a larger bench will need to settle the law.

Source: Indian Express

Download as PDF