After nearly 19 years in custody and only four witnesses examined, accused gets bail in UAPA case

The Appellant was arrested on 9 October 2007 in connection with a prosecution arising from the recovery of arms, ammunition and explosives.

The principal material against him was his own confession and confessional statements of co-accused, which alleged that he travelled to Bangladesh to obtain funds connected with the group’s activities; no arms or explosives were recovered from him.

He was charged in a separate trial under, among other provisions, the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA).

At the time of the appeal, he had been in custody for more than 19 years; only four witnesses had been examined, and the prosecution proposed to call about 100 witnesses.

The appeal challenged the Special Judge’s order dated 19 May 2023 refusing bail.

1. Whether the UAPA bar on bail under Section 43D(5) prevented the Appellant’s release, having regard to the material against him.

2. Whether the Appellant should be released on bail given his prolonged custody and the anticipated length of the trial.

Section 43D(5) of the UAPA restricts bail where, upon consideration of the case diary or report, the court finds reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against the accused is prima facie true; the Court assessed whether that restriction applied to the UAPA accusations against the Appellant.

The Court also treated the Appellant’s more than 19 years in custody, the limited progress of the trial and its likely duration as relevant to the bail decision.

The Court identified the Appellant’s confession and the co-accuseds’ confessions as the principal material against him.

It considered that material to show, at most, that he had been sent to Bangladesh to collect money, which he did not obtain because the arms consignment had been intercepted; it found no other material attributing an active role to him.

On that record, the Court found no reasonable grounds to treat the UAPA accusations as prima facie true for the purpose of Section 43D(5).

It also relied on the Appellant’s prolonged custody and the fact that the trial was unlikely to conclude within a reasonable time.

It set aside the Special Judge’s order and directed release on a ₹50,000 personal-recognizance bond with one or two sureties in the like amount, subject to conditions including attending trial dates, not leaving Maharashtra without permission, monthly reporting to the investigating agency, depositing any passport, providing contact and residential details, and not tampering with evidence.