Rupesh Kumar Singh, an independent journalist from Jharkhand, has been in custody since July 2022 under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) for allegedly having links with the Communist Party of India (Maoist) and arranging funds for them. His arrest followed his journalistic work on displacement, industrial pollution, and alleged state excesses, which many believe led to his prosecution as an act of state repression against dissenting voices.

Singh was initially not named in the FIR but was later implicated based on alleged digital evidence obtained from co-accused individuals. His previous encounters with the authorities include a 2019 arrest under similar charges, where he was eventually released on default bail due to the failure of the police to file a chargesheet in time. His arrest came days after he posted a Twitter thread on environmental degradation in Jharkhand, raising concerns over state surveillance and retaliation against critical journalism.

His case mirrors a broader crackdown on journalists, activists, and human rights defenders under UAPA. Notably, student leader Umar Khalid, Khalid Saifi and Gulfishan Fatima remain behind bars as under trials and Father Stan Swamy, an 84-year-old tribal rights activist, died in jail while facing questionable UAPA charges. These instances reflect a growing trend of using stringent anti-terror laws to silence dissent.

The United Nations Human Rights Office has also expressed concern over the misuse of UAPA in India, urging the government to review its application and ensure that it is not being used to target dissenting voices. The UN specifically called for the dropping of charges against Arundhati Roy and Sheikh Showkat Hussain, who were prosecuted under UAPA for their comments on Kashmir.

Supreme Court’s decision

On January 27, 2025, the Supreme Court, comprising Justices M.M. Sundresh and Rajesh Bindal, dismissed Singh’s Special Leave Petition (SLP) against the Jharkhand High Court’s order denying him bail. The Court stated that it was “not inclined to interfere” with the High Court’s decision, thereby upholding the denial of bail.

The apex court’s order did not provide detailed reasoning beyond affirming the High Court’s conclusions, which raises significant concerns about judicial oversight in politically sensitive cases. This decision effectively keeps Singh incarcerated without trial, reflecting the stringent nature of UAPA bail provisions and their impact on civil liberties.

Supreme Court’s decision

On January 27, 2025, the Supreme Court, comprising Justices M.M. Sundresh and Rajesh Bindal, dismissed Singh’s Special Leave Petition (SLP) against the Jharkhand High Court’s order denying him bail. The Court stated that it was “not inclined to interfere” with the High Court’s decision, thereby upholding the denial of bail.

The order may be read here:

The apex court’s order did not provide detailed reasoning beyond affirming the High Court’s conclusions, which raises significant concerns about judicial oversight in such sensitive cases. This decision effectively keeps Singh incarcerated without trial, reflecting the stringent nature of UAPA bail provisions and their impact on civil liberties.

Legal Issues Involved

1. Application of UAPA’s stringent bail provisions:

• The High Court and Supreme Court relied on Section 43 D(5) of the UAPA, which mandates that bail cannot be granted if the court believes the allegations are “prima facie true.” The threshold for bail under UAPA is significantly higher than in regular criminal cases
• The courts have interpreted “prima facie true” broadly, often placing the burden of proof on the accused, rather than requiring the prosecution to demonstrate substantial evidence at the bail stage.

2. Lack of independent evidence against Singh:

The primary evidence against Singh appears to be electronic data allegedly recovered from an SSD card seized from a co-accused. His defence argues that:

• No direct incriminating evidence was found from Singh’s residence or personal devices.
• The alleged videos and photographs are inconclusive in proving any criminal intent or Maoist affiliation.
• Digital evidence can be easily manipulated, and its authenticity should be scrutinized before being treated as conclusive proof.

Violation of fundamental rights:

• Singh’s arrest and prolonged detention raise concerns under Article 19(1)(a) (freedom of speech and expression) and Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty) of the Indian Constitution.
• The Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) and United Nations Special Rapporteur on Human Rights Defenders have highlighted Singh’s case as an example of state-led suppression of press freedom
• His prosecution under UAPA fits a pattern of using anti-terror laws to target activists, journalists, and dissidents.

A slew of judgements of the constitutional courts analysed by our team below illustrate how bail under this draconian counter-terror law has been addressed. Before this, in 2020, our team had analysed how various courts dealt with the issue of bail under the stringent UAPA. That legal resource may be read here.

Precedents

Observations of the Supreme Court in Thwaha Fasal v. Union of India (2021)

The Supreme Court in Thwaha Fasal v. Union of India (2021) clarified the necessity of an independent judicial assessment in bail matters under the UAPA. The Court observed that:

1. Mere membership in a banned organisation does not amount to criminal activity: The Court ruled that the prosecution must establish a direct and substantial connection between the accused and the alleged unlawful activities. A person cannot be denied bail solely on the basis of association.

On plain reading of Section 38, the offence punishable therein will be attracted if the accused associates himself or professes to associate himself with a terrorist organisation included in First Schedule with intention to further its activities. In such a case, he commits an offence relating to membership of a terrorist organisation covered by Section 38. The person committing an offence under Section 38 may be a member of a terrorist organization or he may not be a member. If the accused is a member of terrorist organisation which indulges in terrorist act covered by Section 15, stringent offence under Section 20 may be attracted. If the accused is associated with a terrorist organisation, the offence punishable under Section 38 relating to membership of a terrorist organisation is attracted only if he associates with terrorist organisation or professes to be associated with a terrorist organisation with intention to further its activities. The association must be with intention to further the activities of a terrorist organisation. The activity has to be in connection with terrorist act as defined in Section 15. Clause (b) of proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 38 provides that if a person charged with the offence under sub-section (1) of Section 38 proves that he has not taken part in the activities of the organisation during the period in which the name of the organisation is included in the First Schedule, the offence relating to the membership of a terrorist organisation under sub-section (1) of Section 38 will not be attracted. The aforesaid clause (b) can be a defence of the accused. However, while considering the prayer for grant of bail, we are not concerned with the defence of the accused. (Para 13)

2. Independent judicial scrutiny is essential: Courts cannot mechanically accept the prosecution’s claims under Section 43D (5) of the UAPA. The judiciary must conduct a thorough review of the material evidence before concluding that the allegations are “prima facie true.”

“..By virtue of the proviso to sub-section (5), it is the duty of the Court to be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against the accused is prima facie true or otherwise..” (Para 21)

3. The Court emphasised that the offences under Sections 38 and 39 require mens rea (guilty intent). Mere association or possession of Maoist literature does not satisfy the requirement of intention unless there is active participation or acts showing furtherance of terrorist activities.

“Thus, the offence under sub-section (1) of Section 38 of associating or  professing to be associated with the terrorist organisation and the offence relating to supporting a terrorist organisation under Section 39 will not be attracted unless the acts specified in both the Sections are done with intention to further the activities of a terrorist organisation. To that extent, the requirement of mens rea is involved. Thus, mere association with a terrorist organisation as a member or otherwise will not be sufficient to attract the offence under Section 38 unless the association is with intention to further its activities.” (Para 15)

4. The Court reiterated that constitutional courts retain the power to grant bail despite the strict conditions in UAPA, especially when prolonged incarceration violates fundamental rights. The accused had already been in custody for over 570 days, and the trial was unlikely to conclude soon. The Court restored the Special Court’s order granting bail to the accused.

“As held in the case of K.A. Najeeb (supra), the stringent restrictions imposed by sub-section(5) of Section 43D, do not negate the power of Constitutional Court to grant bail keeping in mind violation of Part III of the Constitution. It is not disputed that the accused no. 1 is taking treatment for a psychological disorder. The accused no. 1 is a student of law. Moreover, 92 witnesses have been cited by the prosecution. Even assuming that some of the witnesses may be dropped at the time of trial, there is no possibility of the trial being concluded in a reasonable time as even charges have not been framed. There is no minimum punishment prescribed for the offences under Sections 38 and 39 of the 1967 Act and the punishment can extend to 10 years or only fine or with both. Hence, depending upon the evidence on record and after consideration of relevant factors, the accused can be let off even on fine. As regards the offence under Section 13 alleged against accused no. 2, the maximum punishment is of imprisonment of 5 years or with fine or with both. The accused no. 2 has been in custody for more than 570 days.” (Para 42)

The judgement in Thwaha Fasal v. Union of India (2021) may be read here:

Observations in Javed Ghulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra (2024)

1. The appellant has been in custody as an undertrial prisoner for four years. The trial court has not yet framed charges. The prosecution intends to examine at least 80 witnesses, making the conclusion of the trial uncertain.

“Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having gone through the materials on record, we are inclined to exercise our discretion in favour of the appellant herein keeping in mind the following aspects: 

(i)  The appellant is in jail as an under-trial prisoner past four years; 

(ii)  Till this date, the trial court has not been able to even proceed to frame charge; and 

(iii)  As pointed out by the counsel appearing for the State as well as NIA, the prosecution intends to examine not less than eighty witnesses.” (Para 7)

2. The court emphasized that howsoever serious a crime may be, an accused has a fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.

“Having regard to the aforesaid, we wonder by what period of time, the trial will ultimately conclude. Howsoever serious a crime may be, an accused has a right to speedy trial as enshrined under the Constitution of India.”  (Para 8)

3. The appellant remains an accused, not a convict.  The fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence—that an accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty must not be ignored.

“We may hasten to add that the petitioner is still an accused; not a convict. The over-arching postulate of criminal jurisprudence that an accused is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty cannot be brushed aside lightly, howsoever stringent the penal law may be.” (Para 20)

4. The court noted that jails are overcrowded, and undertrial prisoners suffer due to delayed trials. It referred to Mohd Muslim @ Hussain v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2023 INSC 311), highlighting that prolonged incarceration has severe social and psychological consequences. (Para 14)

5. The court referred to Section 19 of the National Investigation Agency Act, which mandates that trials must be conducted on a day-to-day basis.

“The requirement of law as being envisaged under Section 19 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (hereinafter being referred to as “the 2008 Act”) mandates that the trial under the Act of any offence by a Special Court shall be held on day-to-day basis on all working days and have precedence over the trial of any other case and Special Courts are to be designated for such an offence by the Central Government in consultation with the Chief Justice of the High Court as contemplated under Section 11 of the 2008.” (Para 15)

6. In Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb (2021) 3 SCC 713, the court held that statutory restrictions on bail (like UAPA’s Section 43-D (5)) cannot override constitutional rights. The court reiterated that when trials are excessively delayed, bail should not be denied solely based on the severity of the offence. (Para 16)

7. The judgment noted that criminals are made, not born, and the criminal justice system should consider social and economic factors that may influence crime. The court emphasized that justice should be tempered with humanity, quoting the principle that “Every saint has a past, and every sinner a future.”

“Criminals are not born out but made. The human potential in everyone is good and so, never write off any criminal as beyond redemption. This humanist fundamental is often missed when dealing with delinquents, juvenile and adult. Indeed, every saint has a past and every sinner a future. When a crime is committed, a variety of factors is responsible for making the offender commit the crime. Those factors may be social and economic, may be, the result of value erosion or parental neglect; may be, because of the stress of circumstances, or the manifestation of temptations in a milieu of affluence contrasted with indigence or other privations.” (Para 18)

The judgement in Javed Ghulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra (2024) may be read here:

Observations in Jahir Haq v. State of Rajasthan (2022)

1. The appellant had been in custody as an undertrial for almost 8 years (since 08.05.2014). Only 6 out of 109 witnesses had been examined so far, indicating an unreasonably delayed trial. The trial court estimated that the case might take 2-3 more years for completion.
2. The Supreme Court had directed priority examination of three prosecution witnesses who had raised concerns about threats to their lives.

Among these witnesses: One (Devendra Patel) was declared hostile. The other two (Hemant and Pappuram) did not provide any deposition implicating the appellant. The State’s case was largely based on the appellant’s alleged communication (31 conversations) with a co-villager, who was accused of being a sleeper cell module head of the Indian Mujahideen.
“We are of the view that in the facts of this case, when the petitioner has already spent nearly 8 years in custody, the appropriate order to pass would be to first direct the examination of the three witnesses who have raised concerns about threat to their lives from the accused and the matter should receive attention of this Court after their evidence is adduced. However, these witnesses must be examined on a priority basis.” (Para 8)

3. The court relied on Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb (2021) 3 SCC 713, where bail was granted in cases of long incarceration. It noted that UAPA’s bail restrictions (Section 43D (5)) are comparatively less stringent than NDPS Act provisions, which demand a prima facie case of innocence before granting bail. (Para 12)

4. One co-accused, Adil Ansari, had already been granted bail by the Supreme Court in 2020. The State argued that the role of the appellant was different, but the court acknowledged this factor in deciding bail.

“No doubt, in the said case, as pointed out by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State, the Court was dealing with an order passed by the High Court granting bail, whereas, in this case, the converse is true, that is, the impugned order is one rejecting the application for bail. The fact remains that the appellant has been in custody as an undertrial prisoner for a period of nearly 8 years already. The appellant, it may be noted, is charged with offences, some of which are punishable with a minimum punishment of 10 years and the sentence may extend to imprisonment for life. Learned counsel for the appellant also points out that one of the co-accused namely Shri Aadil Ansari has been released on bail on 30.09.2020 by this Court. No doubt, in this regard, we keep in mind the submission of the State that the role attributed to the said accused is different.” (Para 13)

5. The impugned High Court order rejecting bail was set aside. The appellant was granted bail, subject to conditions imposed by the trial court. The judgment made it clear that these observations were only for the purpose of deciding bail and would not affect the merits of the case during trial.

The judgement in Jahir Haq v. State of Rajasthan (2022) may be read here:

Observations in Mukesh Salam v. State of Chhattisgarh (2024)

1. The Court noted that 12 out of 14 accused persons in the case had already been granted bail, either by the High Court or the Supreme Court. The number of prosecution witnesses had been reduced from 114 to 100, and only 40 witnesses had been examined so far.

Bearing in mind the above circumstances and the nature of the alleged case, we are of the considered view that the continued detention of the petitioner would not subserve the ends of justice. There is no likelihood of the early conclusion of the trial. The petitioner is in custody since 6 May 2020. We accordingly order and direct that the petitioner be released on bail, subject to such terms and conditions as may be imposed by the Special Judge (NIA Act), Kanker, in connection with FIR No 9 of 2020. (Para 5)

This ruling highlights the importance of parity in bail matters, considering that a majority of the co-accused had already been granted bail, and the prolonged trial delay was a factor in the decision.

The judgement in Mukesh Salam v. State of Chhattisgarh (2024) may be read here:

Observations in Jalaluddin Khan v. Union of India (2024)

1. The charge sheet did not contain specific material proving that the appellant participated in, abetted, or incited unlawful activities or terrorist acts. There was no evidence to suggest that the appellant was a member of a terrorist gang or organization under the meaning of Section 2(m) of the UAPA.

“We may note here that, assuming that the appellant knew that co- accused Athar Parvez was associated with PFI, it is not listed as a terrorist organisation within the meaning of Section 2(m) of UAPA. Moreover, the charge sheet does not contain any material to show any connection of the appellant with PFI before letting out first floor premises to accused no.1.” (Para 6)

2. The Court found that the statement of a protected witness (Z) had been misrepresented in the charge sheet, raising concerns about the fairness of the investigation.

“Thus, paragraph 17.16 purports to reproduce the statement of protected witness Z. In terms of our earlier order, the translated version of the statement of protected witness Z, recorded before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna, has been produced in a sealed envelope. We find that the statement substantially differs from what is narrated in paragraph 17.16 of the charge sheet.” (Para 10)

3. The Court reiterated that “bail is the rule and jail is an exception”, emphasizing that even under stringent statutes like UAPA, bail should not be denied when statutory conditions are met.

“…when a case is made out for a grant of bail, the Courts should not have any hesitation in granting bail. The allegations of the prosecution may be very serious. But, the duty of the Courts is to consider the case for grant of bail in accordance with the law. “Bail is the rule and jail is an exception” is a settled law. Even in a case like the present case where there are stringent conditions for the grant of bail in the relevant statutes, the same rule holds good with only modification that the bail can be granted if the conditions in the statute are satisfied. The rule also means that once a case is made out for the grant of bail, the Court cannot decline to grant bail..”  (Para 21)

4. The Court held that unjustly denying bail in deserving cases would violate the fundamental right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.

“…If the Courts start denying bail in deserving cases, it will be a violation of the rights guaranteed under Article 21 of our Constitution.” (Para 21)

The judgement in Jalaluddin Khan v. Union of India (2024) may be read here:

Observations in Yedala v. State (2024)

The case was related to the murder of two politicians by members of the CPI (Maoist), a terrorist organization notified under UAPA. The National Investigation Agency (NIA) took over the investigation and filed a chargesheet against 79 accused. The appellants had been in custody for over four years and seven months without the framing of charges.

The court examined whether there were reasonable grounds to believe that the accusations were prima facie true. After analysing the entire prosecution case, the court concluded that there was no strong material linking the accused to the crime. Since the prima facie case was weak, the statutory bar on bail under UAPA did not apply.

“…Taking the material against the appellants as it is and without considering the defence of the appellants, we are unable to form an opinion that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusations against the appellants of commission of offence under the UAPA are prime facie true. Hence, the embargo on the grant of bail under proviso to subsection (5) of Section 43D will not apply in this case. We, however, make it clear that the findings recorded in this Judgment are only prima facie observations recorded for the limited purposes of examining the case in the light of the proviso to sub section (5) of Section 43D of the UAPA. The trial shall be conducted uninfluenced by these observations.” (Para 21)  

The judgement in Yedala v. State (2024) may be read here:

Observations in Sushesh Kedia v. Union of India, 2021

1. The Court emphasized that under Section 43-D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), an accused is not entitled to bail if there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusations are prima facie true. However, upon scrutiny of the material placed before the Court, it was found that the primary accusation against the appellant was that he paid levy/extortion money to the terrorist organization Tritiya Prastuti Committee (TPC). The Court held that payment of extortion money does not amount to terror funding.

A close scrutiny of the material placed before the Court would clearly shows that the main accusation against the Appellant is that he paid levy / extortion amount to the terrorist organization. Payment of extortion money does not amount to terror funding. It is clear from the supplementary charge-sheet and the other material on record that other accused who are members of the terrorist organization have been systematically collecting extortion amounts from businessmen in Amrapali and Magadh areas. The Appellant is carrying on transport business in the area of operation of the organization ((Para 11 (A))

2. The Court noted that the charge sheet alleged that other accused persons, who were members of the terrorist organization, had been systematically collecting extortion amounts from businessmen in the Amrapali and Magadh areas. The appellant was in the business of coal transportation in that region and had made payments under duress. It could not be said prima facie that the appellant conspired with the other members of TPC or raised funds to promote the organization.

“…It is alleged in the second supplementary charge- sheet that the Appellant paid money to the members of the TPC for smooth running of his business. Prima facie, it cannot be said that the Appellant conspired with the other members of the TPC and raised funds to promote the organization.” ((Para 11 (A))

3. The prosecution argued that the appellant had been in constant touch with members of the terrorist group. The Court noted that the appellant had stated in his Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement that he was summoned to meet A-14 and other members in connection with the payments. The Court held that merely meeting the members of TPC, without further evidence of conspiracy, does not establish a prima facie case of involvement in a terrorist conspiracy.

“Another factor taken into account by the Special Court and the High Court relates to the allegation of the Appellant meeting the members of the terror organization. It has been held by the High Court that the Appellant has been in constant touch with the other accused. The Appellant has revealed in his statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.PC that he was summoned to meet A-14 and the other members of the organization in connection with the payments made by him. Prima facie, we are not satisfied that a case of conspiracy has been made out at this stage only on the ground that the Appellant met the members of the organization.”((Para 11 (B)))

4. The Court referred to National Investigation Agency v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali (2019) 5 SCC 1, which set the parameters for granting bail under Section 43-D (5) of the UAPA. The Court held that while prima facie satisfaction of allegations is sufficient to deny bail under UAPA, in this case, the material did not meet the threshold to establish a clear case against the appellant.

“After a detailed examination of the contentions of the parties and scrutiny of the material on record, we are not satisfied that a prima facie case has been made out against the Appellant relating to the offences alleged against him. We make it clear that these findings are restricted only for the purpose of grant of bail to the Appellant and the trial court shall not be influenced by these observations during trial.” ((Para 12))

The judgement in Sushesh Kedia v. Union of India, 2021may be read here:

Singh’s case underscores the precarious state of press freedom and the judiciary’s cautious approach in UAPA matters. While national security concerns must be addressed, an overbroad application of UAPA risks eroding fundamental rights. The denial of bail in Singh’s case, despite the legal precedents favouring a more balanced approach, raises significant questions about the selective and inconsistent application of UAPA laws. The courts must ensure that stringent bail conditions do not serve as a mechanism for prolonged incarceration without trial, which contradicts the very principles of justice enshrined in the Indian Constitution.

(The legal research team of CJP consists of lawyers and interns; this legal resource has been worked on by Shailendar Karthikeyan)

Related: 

How difficult is it to obtain Bail under the UAPA?

Petitions challenging stringent provisions of UAPA to be heard by the SC

The post SC’s denial of bail to journalist Rupesh Singh once again showcases how the Court looks at bail under UAPA, with varying consistency appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The PUCL condemns the decision of the Delhi Lieutenant-Governor Vinay Kumar Saxena to grant Delhi Police sanction to prosecute writer Arundhati Roy and Sheikh Showkat Hussain, (former Professor of International Law at Central University of Kashmir), in a 2010 case for offences under Section 13 of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act. This decision of the LG follows the earlier decision to grant sanction to prosecute Roy and Husain for offence under sections 153A, 153B and 505 of the Indian Penal Code in October of 2023.

It bears noting that the sanction given by the LG for prosecuting Roy and Husain for offences u/s 153A, 153B and 505 IPC is hit by Sec. 468 CrPC which bars courts taking cognisance of cases after a delay of 3 years when the offences carry a maximum sentence of 3 years. It seems plausible that the LG’s sanction to prosecute for offences under section 13 UAPA (which carries a sentence of 7 years), after a gap of fourteen years is to get over this legal hurdle.

The invocation of the UAPA by the LG, is politically motivated, patently unconscionable and vindictive. Prima facie, it does not flow out of any concern for national security or national interest, but seeks to deploy the UAPA as a tool to serve one’s political masters. This is obvious from the fact that it is not even the LG’s case that the speeches made by Arundhati Roy and others at a convention on Kashmir, ‘Azadi: The Only Way’, organised in New Delhi in October 2010 has provoked violent disturbance in 2024, thereby necessitating urgent legal action under the UAPA!

A mature constitutional democracy ought not to prosecute speech, which by itself has no direct causal connection to violence or disorder. It is shameful that an FIR was even registered for speech which by all accounts did not incite or provoke any form of violence and even more reprehensible that the LG has granted sanction to prosecute, that too in 2024!

To persist in prosecuting the authors and writers under this old FIR, casts a long shadow on India as the world’s largest democracy

We condemn this knee jerk reaction to grant sanction to prosecute an alleged offence committed almost fourteen years ago as nothing other than an attempt by the administration to intimidate and browbeat courageous writer and thinkers who dare to speak truth to power.

To persist in prosecuting these authors and writers under this old FIR, casts a long shadow on India as the world’s largest democracy. A country which persecutes its writers and truth tellers, for words which it deems unpalatable, forfeits the claim to be the ‘mother of democracy’

We demand that the prosecution be withdrawn with immediate effect against both Arundhati Roy and Sheikh Showkat Hussain under both the UAPA as well as the IPC provisions for a speech made almost fourteen years ago.

We also demand that the UAPA, a law rife with unconstitutional implications be repealed.

— Kavita Srivastava (president), Dr V Suresh (general secretary), PUCL

Courtesy: CounterView

The post Sanction to persecute Arundhati Roy under UAPA politically motivated: PUCL appeared first on SabrangIndia.

“The Right to Life and Personal Liberty is the most sacrosanct fundamental right guaranteed under Articles 20, 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India. Any attempt to encroach upon this fundamental right has been frowned upon by this Court.”

Through a series of judgments, beginning from Senthil Balaji case (August 7, 2023) to quashing of the remand order of Prabir Purkayastha (May 15, 2024), the Supreme Court has been finally able to introduce as well as cement the safeguard of providing grounds of arrest to an accused being arrested under the UAPA [Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967] as well as the PMLA [Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002].

Arrest under these two stringent laws has led to a violations of many of the constitutional safeguards that had been put in place to protect the rights of the accused. These rights included the right of an accused to be provided information regarding the grounds of their arrest, based of which their legal counsel for challenge the arrest of the accused. However, while arresting under PMLA and UAPA, authorities would not provide the grounds of arrest to the accused, a practice which had not previously been made mandatory by the Supreme Court of India.

On May 15, the Supreme Court of India had declared the remand and arrest of Newsclick founder-editor Prabir Purkayastha to be “invalid in the eyes of the law”.  The Supreme Court bench of Justices BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta had set aside and quashed the remand order issued against him, justifying his arrest and police custody, under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.

Notably, the impugned remand order had been passed against Purkayastha on October 4, 2023 by a special judge at the Patiala House court for seven days of police custody. The order was challenged by Purkayastha before the Delhi High Court on the grounds that the arrest was illegal and a gross violation of his fundamental rights under Articles 21 (protection of life and personal liberty) and 22(1) & (5) (right to be informed of grounds of arrest and right to be represented by a legal practitioner) of the Constitution.

On October 13, the Delhi High Court had upheld the said remand order. Pursuant to the same, Purkayashta had moved the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court bench had, while quashing the remand order, pointed to procedural irregularities in the case. The order of the court was based on the reasoning that the copy of the remand application was not provided to the appellant or his counsel before passing the remand order on October 4, 2023.

While pronouncing the judgement, the bench noted that “There is no hesitation in the mind of the Court to reach to a conclusion that a copy of the remand application, in the purported exercise of the communication of the grounds of arrest in writing, was not provided to the accused-appellant or his counsel before the passing of the remand order dated 4th October, 2023, which vitiates the arrest and the subsequent remand of the appellant. As a result, the appellant is entitled to a direction for release from custody by applying the ration of the judgment rendered by this court in Pankaj Bansal.” (Para 50)

It is to be noted that Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing Purkayastha, had relied heavily on Pankaj Bansal versus Union of India and Others (2023). In this judgment, interpreting Section 19(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, the Supreme Court had held that if the grounds of arrest are not furnished to the accused person at the time of his arrest and before remanding him to police custody, the continued custody of the accused is rendered grossly illegal and nullity in the eyes of law. The reasoning behind the same formed Article 22(1) of the Constitution, which provides that “No person who is arrested shall be detained in custody without being informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds for such arrest nor shall he be denied the right to consult, and to be defended by, a legal practitioner of his choice.”

In addition to this, the judgment delivered by the Supreme Court in the case of V. Senthil Balaji vs. The State represented by Deputy Director and others (August 7, 2023) also formed a foundational stone in the argument of ‘informing’ the arrested person of the grounds for his/her arrest. In Senthil Balaji case, the Supreme Court had noted that the information of the grounds of arrest should be ‘served’ on the arrestee. While the premise was set in the said case, the Court had not elaborated on that issue as the grounds of arrest were furnished in writing to the arrested person in that case.

With the aforementioned three cases, the Supreme Court has been able to cement, and also extend the requirement to cases filed under both UAPA and PMLA, requiring the authorities to supply the accused with ground of arrest. It is to be noted that in the matter of Senthil Balaji, who was arrested under PMLA, the Supreme Court had noted that there was an absence of consistent and uniform practice that was followed by the ED as written copies of the grounds of arrest are furnished to arrested persons in certain parts of the country but in other areas, that practice is not followed. The Court had also pointed to how discrepancy on a case-to-case basis also existed as in some cases the grounds of arrest are either read out to them, while in other cases the ground of arrest is being allowed to be read by them.

But, with the latest judgment of the Supreme Court in the Prabir Purkayastha, one main thing has been established- the provisions on the ground of arrest either under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act or the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act have the same constitutional source, i.e., Article 22(1) and must thus be uniformly construed.

Notably, the comparison between Section 19 of the PMLA and Section 43A and 43B of the UAPA was made by the court by holding that these two provided had the same requirement to communicate the grounds of arrest to the accused being arrested. In furtherance to this, the Court had also observed that both the aforementioned provisions find their source in the constitutional safeguard provided under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India.

Grounds of arrest vs reasons for arrest: Prabir Purkayastha

In the said judgment of the Supreme Court, the bench has explained the difference between reasons for arrest and grounds of arrest. It is to be noted that it was the case of the accused that they had been arrested and provided with an arrest memo, which was in a computerised format and did not contain any column regarding the ‘grounds of arrest’ of the appellant.

The Court said that the grounds of arrest informed in writing must convey to the arrested accused all basic facts on which he was being arrested so as to provide him an opportunity of defending himself against custodial remand and to seek bail and thus, the ‘grounds of arrest’ would invariably be personal to the accused and cannot be equated with the ‘reasons of arrest’ which are general in nature.

“We find that the provision regarding the communication of the grounds of arrest to a person arrested contained in Section 43B (1) of the UAPA is verbatim the same as that in Section 19(1) of the PMLA.” (Para 18)

With this, the Court emphasised the need for the uniform application of those provisions which lay down the crucial constitutional safeguard, which finds its source under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, of providing the document of ground of arrest to the person arrested for committing an offence either under the PMLA or under the UAPA. In specific regards to the case of arrest and remand of Purkayastha, the Court had also rejected the submission of learned Additional Solicitor General that in a case of preventive detention, the grounds of detention need not be provided to a detenue in writing. The cold held the same to be “ex facie untenable in eyes of law”.

“Thus, we have no hesitation in holding that the interpretation of statutory mandate laid down by this Court in the case of Pankaj Bansal on the aspect of informing the arrested person the grounds of arrest in writing has to be applied pari passu to a person arrested in a case registered under the provisions of the UAPA.” (Para 19)

With the said judgment, the Supreme Court clarified every doubt regarding the supply of grounds of arrest in the writing to any person arrested on allegation of commission of offences under the provisions of UAPA. Notably, the court also held that a copy of such written grounds of arrest will also have to be furnished to the arrested person as a matter of course and without exception at the earliest.

“The purpose of informing to the arrested person the grounds of arrest is salutary and sacrosanct inasmuch as, this information would be the only effective means for the arrested person to consult his Advocate; oppose the police custody remand and to seek bail. Any other interpretation would tantamount to diluting the sanctity of the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India.” (Para 20)

In Purkayastha’s case, the Supreme Court also highlighted the procedural irregularities that took place during the entire exercise of Purkayastha’s arrest. Referring to the same as “a blatant attempt to circumvent the due process of law” the Supreme Court bench had pointed to the attempts by the authorities to confine the accused to police custody without informing him the grounds on which he has been arrested. As per the judgement, the act of depriving the accused of the opportunity to avail the services of the legal practitioner of his choice and not sending the chosen advocate the remand order and the grounds of arrest in a timely manner affected his right to oppose the prayer for police custody remand and seek bail.

“Hence, we have no hesitation in reiterating that the requirement to communicate the grounds of arrest or the grounds of detention in writing to a person arrested in connection with an offence or a person placed under preventive detention as provided under Articles 22(1) and 22(5) of the Constitution of India is sacrosanct and cannot be breached under any situation. Noncompliance of this constitutional requirement and statutory mandate would lead to the custody or the detention being rendered illegal, as the case may be.” (Para 30)

The complete judgment can be read here:

What did Delhi HC say on “grounds of arrest” in Purkayastha’s case?

It is essential to note that on October 13, 2023, the Delhi High Court had rejected the plea moved by Purkayashta against the remand order, by holding that the Supreme Court judgment in Pankaj Bansal case, directing ED to inform grounds of arrest in writing to the accused, cannot be said to be squarely applicable to a case arising under UAPA. Notably, Justice Tushar Rao Gedela had held that under UAPA, the grounds of arrest need to be informed to the arrestee within 24 hours of such arrest, however furnishing of such grounds in written are not mandated under the enactment. The same judgment had then been entirely overturned in the Supreme Court. Let’s look at what the Delhi HC had observed on the applicability of Pankaj Bansal case:

According to High Court, the Preamble and aims and objects of PMLA are to prevent the offence of money laundering and to provide for confiscation of property derived from, or involved in, money-laundering. Holding that the PMLA is an enactment for maintaining the internal law and order in relation to financial crimes, the High Court observed that the sensitivity of the information/intelligence being gathered by the investigating authorities under the UAPA is of a greater significance having direct impact on the issues relating to national security. In view of the same, the Court stated that the ratio laid down by the Court of providing grounds of arrest to the accused in writing in the Pankaj Bansal case, which concerned PMLA, will not be applicable to UAPA.

“Thus, the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in Pankaj Bansal (supra) while relying upon V. Senthil Balaji (supra) which was purely in relation to the provisions of PMLA cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be made applicable, mutatis mutandis, to the cases arising under UAPA.” (Para 8)

“So far as the UAPA is concerned, no such similar statutory obligation is cast upon the authorities under the provisions of section 43A & 43B and thus, the ratio of the Supreme Court in Pankaj Bansal (supra) cannot be said to be squarely applicable to a case arising under the provisions of UAPA.” (Para 9)

The complete judgment can be read here:

Cases that formed the basis of the Supreme Court judgement?

1. Pankaj Bansal v Union of India

The Supreme Court of India had ruled that merely reading out the grounds of arrest by the Enforcement Directorate to an arrested person is not compliant with the procedure enshrined under the PMLA as well as the Constitution of India.

Brief facts of the case: An FIR was registered by the Anti-Corruption Bureau, Panchkula, Haryana, under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 for the offences of corruption, bribery and criminal conspiracy against certain accused persons, including the M3M Group and one of its promoters. The Appellants, Pankaj Bansal and Basant Bansal were promoters/directors in the M3M Group. However, they were not named as an accused in the FIR or in the enforcement case information report (ECIR) recorded by the ED.

When ED raided the properties, seized bank accounts of M3M group and arrested one of the accused persons, the Appellants, apprehending arrest, secured interim protection from the Delhi High Court by way of an anticipatory bail. The ED approached the Supreme Court assailing the protection granted by the Delhi High Court. In the meantime, the ED recorded another ECIR against the same accused persons. However, yet again, the Appellants were not named accused in the second ECIR as well. Thereafter, the ED issued summons to the Appellants to appear. Whilst the Appellants were present at the ED office on the said date, Pankaj Bansal was served with fresh summons in connection with the second ECIR to appear before another investigating officer on the same day.

Subsequently, the Appellants were arrested on the same day in terms of Section 19 of the PMLA and then taken to the Vacation Judge/Additional Sessions Judge, Panchkula. There, they were served with the remand application filed by the ED. The Vacation Judge passed an order granting custody to the ED for five days, which was later extended and thereafter they were sent to the judicial custody. Feeling aggrieved, the Appellants filed writ petitions before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which were dismissed. The Appellants challenged the decisions of the Punjab and Haryana High Court by filing criminal appeals before the Supreme Court.

Decision of the court regarding grounds of arrest: The Supreme Court noted that Section 19 of the PMLA, under which the appellants were arrested does not specify in clear terms as to how the arrested person is to be ‘informed’ of the grounds of arrest. Thus, the Court emphasised for there to be proper compliance of Article 22(1) of the Constitution which provides that no person who is arrested will be detained in custody without being informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds for such arrest, it is also important that the mode of conveying the grounds must be meaningful.

The Supreme Court further analysed the twin conditions set out under Section 45 of the PMLA, under which an arrested person could be allowed to seek release on bail. Notably, as per Section 45 of the PMLA, bail can only be granted when the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the arrested person is not guilty of the offence, and that the arrested person is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.

Emphasising upon the strict and narrow nature of the bail conditions under PMLA, the Supreme Court held that it would be essential for an arrested person to know the grounds of arrest in order for him/her to be a position to plead and prove before the Special Court that there are grounds to believe that he/she is not guilty of such offence, so as to avail the relief of bail. Through the case of Pankaj Bansal, the Court established that communication of the grounds of arrest, as mandated by Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 19 of the PMLA, is meant to serve this higher purpose and must be given due importance.

Furthermore, the Court had also pointed to the disparate procedure being adopted by the ED in informing the grounds of arrest to the accused. Consequently, the Supreme Court observed that furnishing written grounds of arrest to an arrested person would be the advisable course of action as it would be in line with the constitutional obligations put on the authorities. The Court also noted that a mere oral recitation of the grounds of arrest would lead to the word of the arrested person being put up against the word of the authorized officer as to whether or not there is due and proper compliance in this regard, which would defeat the whole purpose of the arrest.

In view of the above, the Supreme Court then ruled that a copy of the written grounds of arrest must be furnished as a matter of rule and not exception, thereby ensuring due compliance of the mandate prescribed under Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 19 of the PMLA.

The complete judgment can be read here.

2. Senthil Balaji v the State represented by Deputy Director and Ors.

In the said case, the Supreme Court had held that any non-compliance of the mandate of Section 19 of the PMLA, which gives the authorities to exercise their power of arrest, would vitiate the very arrest itself. The Court had also held that such non-compliance would give benefit to the person arrested.

Brief Background of the case: A case was registered in the ECIR by the State against Tamil Nadu minister V Senthil Balaji in 2021 in connection with the cash-for-jobs scam. It was followed by a summons requiring his attendance in August 4, 2021 and October 07, 2021. A search was conducted by the Authorised Officer invoking Section 17 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 at Senthil Balaji premises on June 13, 2023.

Citing non-cooperation by Balaji, the authority then invoked Section 19 of the PMLA by way of an arrest on June 14, 2023. It is noted that though grounds of arrest were furnished, Senthil Balaji had declined to acknowledge them. The information pertaining to the arrest was also intimated to his brother, sister-in-law and wife. Senthil Balaji was taken to the Tamil Nadu Government Multi Super Speciality Hospital, as he complained of chest pain. His wife rushed to the High Court and filed a Habeas Corpus petition on the very same day. After the said plea was dismissed by the High Court, the petition had been moved to the Supreme Court.

While arguments were being made in the Supreme Court in the Habeas Corpus petition, Balaji had stated that ED has not communicated the grounds of arrest to him, which would hold his arrest to be illegal. As submitted by Balaji, the grounds of arrest document and the Arrest Memo had conflicting stance. Balaji had also contended that the High Court had committed a serious error in rejecting the submission of the Petitioner with regard to non-communication of grounds of arrest.

Decision of the court regarding supply of grounds of arrest: While dismissing the writ of Habeas Corpus filed in this case, the Supreme Court had clarified in the judgment that any non-compliance of the authorities with the safeguards provided in Section 19 of the PMLA would vitiate the very arrest itself.

“To effect an arrest, an officer authorised has to assess and evaluate the materials in his possession. Through such materials, he is expected to form a reason to believe that a person has been guilty of an offence punishable under the PMLA, 2002. Thereafter, he is at liberty to arrest, while performing his mandatory duty of recording the reasons. The said exercise has to be followed by way of an information being served on the arrestee of the grounds of arrest. Any non-compliance of the mandate of Section 19(1) of the PMLA, 2002 would vitiate the very arrest itself. Under sub-section (2), the Authorised Officer shall immediately, after the arrest, forward a copy of the order as mandated under sub-section (1) together with the materials in his custody, forming the basis of his belief, to the Adjudicating Authority, in a sealed envelope. Needless to state, compliance of sub-section (2) is also a solemn function of the arresting authority which brooks no exception.” (Para 39)

In addition to this, the Supreme Court had also held it to be the duty of the Magistrate to ensure that the authorities duly follow the process that is laid down under the PMLA as well as the constitutional safeguards put in place.

“Such a Magistrate has a distinct role to play when a remand is made of an accused person to an authority under the PMLA, 2002. It is his bounden duty to see to it that Section 19 of the PMLA, 2002 is duly complied with and any failure would entitle the arrestee to get released. The Magistrate shall also peruse the order passed by the authority under Section 19(1) of the PMLA, 2002. Section 167 of the CrPC, 1973 is also meant to give effect to Section 19 of the PMLA, 2002 and therefore it is for the Magistrate to satisfy himself of its due compliance. Upon such satisfaction, he can consider the request for custody in favour of an authority, as Section 62 of the PMLA, 2002, does not speak about the authority which is to take action for non- compliance of the mandate of Section 19 of the PMLA, 2002. A remand being made by the Magistrate upon a person being produced before him, being an independent entity, it is well open to him to invoke the said provision in a given case. To put it otherwise, the Magistrate concerned is the appropriate authority who has to be satisfied about the compliance of safeguards as mandated under Section 19 of the PMLA, 2002.” (Para 68)

The complete judgment can be read here.

Related:

Examining Jurisprudential Shifts: The Evolution of Bail Provisions Under PMLA – Part II”

Supreme Court on PMLA: Section 120(B) of the IPC can’t be invoked by ED when criminal conspiracy not linked to schedule offence

Madras HC: Legal bar on ED’s detention, split verdict, PMLA case against Senthil Balaji

After spending 7 months behind bars, Supreme Court declares the arrest and remand of NewsClick founder Prabir Purkayastha illegal!

The post Prabir Purkayastha Case: Mandate of providing grounds of arrest to PMLA/UAPA accused, some safeguards appeared first on SabrangIndia.

I wish to thank the Supreme Court for upholding the bail granted to me by the Bombay High Court. It proved to be a long wait but well worth it.

Although happy for myself, I am saddened that the fate of scores of fellow dissidents implicated in a variety of cases, still hangs in balance. Years of our life have been snatched from us as prisoners awaiting trial, which itself will take years to conclude.

Families of UTPs suffer as much, if not more, from this separation from their loved ones and their lives are greatly disrupted. A reality seldom acknowledged and rarely remedied. What disturbs me, as a democratic rights activist, is that justice appears as a distant dream. An over-burdened judiciary finds itself unable to provide a speedy, fair trial. As a captive, I often hoped that the judiciary would deliver on its lofty pronouncement that “Deprivation of liberty even for a single day is one day too many”. Because UTPs cling to this as a promise.

So, while I am pleased to breathe freer and finally get to meet my near and dear ones, I am aware that others still languish in a life of uncertainty. It hurts that Father Stan Swamy was denied bail while alive and will find redemption only posthumously.

My eighteen months of house arrest was made possible by the generosity of the Trustees of the BT Ranadive Trust and the Communist Party of India (Marxist). When all other options proved futile, they stepped in to provide shelter to me and my life partner Sahba Husain, for which I am deeply grateful.

I want to acknowledge the courteous and decent behaviour of the staff and officers of the Navi Mumbai police for all these 18 months. Both Sahba and I appreciate this.

Finally, I wish to thank my lawyers, friends, family, fellow activists and the independent media for standing by me. I drew much strength from their love and solidarity to face the ordeal of captivity.

Now that I am free…..

“Won’t you help to sing
These songs of freedom
‘cause all I ever have
Redemption songs….” (Bob Marley)

Gautam Navlakha
Belapur, May 19^th 2024

The post Gautam Navlakha’s letter on release from custody appeared first on SabrangIndia.

It is essential to note that though the current case had been lodged by Police Station Rainawari in the year 2019 and yet Sultan had been arrested by the police only this year in February, just days after he had been released from detention on orders of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court in a preventive detention case.

Facts of the case:

As per the police report submitted in the current case, the allegations against the accused/ applicant were that on April 4, 2019, the accused along with other jail inmates in the Central Jail Srinagar had set ablaze few barracks, shouted anti national slogans and had pelted stones on jail employees due to which some officials sustained injuries. As per the FIR in the case, the applicant had been booked for allegedly indulging in the offense of rioting, unlawful assembly, attempted murder under provisions under Unlawful Activities Prevention Act.

The applicant had approached the court seeking his release on bail in the present case on the grounds that the police had arrested him without any reason or rhyme. It had also been alleged by the applicant that the he had been facing incarceration for last more than 5 years under various laws, and was undergoing detention under the Public Safety Act when the present offense had been alleged to have taken place. It is to be noted that Sultan was arrested in 2018 under various charges including harbouring terrorists. He was granted bail in April 2022 but was immediately booked under the Public Safety Act (PSA), a law that allows detention without trial. Only two days prior to his arrest in the present case, the journalist had been released by a jail in Uttar Pradesh in February, two months after Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court had quashed the PSA case citing procedural lapses. He was then re-arrested for his alleged involvement in the 2019 jail violence. 

Arguments raised by the applicant:

The main argument raised by Sultan’s counsel was that the accused was innocence and there was a dearth of evidence linking him to the alleged offenses. It was vehemently argued before the Court that Sultan was a peaceful citizen with no connection to the violent incident.

“It would also be expedient to brought before this court that the accused has no connection with the above-mentioned FIR as he was under detention and how could a person commit a crime when he is already going through the detention. (Sultan) is a peaceful citizen of union territory and the accused is peace loving, law abiding citizen having a high social status and a highly esteemed repute and honour in the locality society and in his neighbourhood; that no prima facie case is made out against the aforementioned accused for the commission of offences alleged in the FIR and he is not even remotely connected with the commission of offences alleged in the FIR or with the commission of offences as such, he is facing detention without any reason and justification” (Para 1)

In addition to this, Sultan’s counsel claimed that the whole premise of the case of the prosecution is based on the alleged shouting of anti-nation slogans and pelting of stones, during which the applicant was not present at the place of occurrence.

“Learned Counsel for the accused /applicant has argued that there is no direct evidence on record which could implicate the accused person/applicant with the commission of crime. He has argued that the whole case of prosecution is based upon alleged shouting of anti-national slogans and pelting of stones on the jail/police officials. He further argued that the case is of the year 2019 and the accused was not present at the place of occurrence. Lastly, it is requested that the accused person/applicant is in custody for the last approximately 72 days and therefore he should be granted bail in the interest of justice.” (Para 6)

Arguments raised by the prosecution:

The said plea for bail had been opposed by the prosecution, which had urged the court to not grant relief keeping in view the seriousness of the allegations raised against the applicant.

“That, there is credible and cogent evidence available at the strength of which it can be safely submitted that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the accused person is involved in the commission of above referred offence, as such grant of bail at this stage will cause impediment in the smooth conduct of investigation. That, the offences and activities in which the above-named accused person is involved being highly antinational. Lastly it is prayed that the bail application be rejected in the interests of justice, society and nation at large.” (Para 4) 

Observations of the Court:

1.  Factors to be considered while granting bail

Additional Sessions Judge Sandeep Gandotra in the order emphasised upon the necessity of the court to consider certain factors while dealing with a bail plea in a case where serious allegations have been raised. These factors are:

“(a) The nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence

(b) Reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant

(c) Prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge

(d) Impact of such offences on larger public interest.” (Para 9)

Observing the same, the Court further highlighted that mere use of the UAPA provisions against an accused would not warrant rejection of bail in ignorance of other binding requirements.

“There can be no dispute at all that so far as the investigation into allegations of commission of offence under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 is concerned, that there is compelling state interest in tackling such serious crimes. However, mere use of this statutory provision would not ipso-facto warrant rejection of applications of bail ignoring the other binding requirements.” (Para 10)

In furtherance to this, the Court stated that as per the guidelines laid down and judgements delivered by the Supreme Court in petitions of bail, it has been established that the power to grant bail is not be exercised by the Sourt as if the punishment before trial is being imposed.

“The two most important considerations that would determine the granting or refusing the bail to the accused are the likelihood or otherwise of the accused absconding or attempting to tamper with the prosecution evidence. Undoubtedly, the other consideration shall also weigh for consideration of a bail matter.” (Para 11) 

2.  Charges levied against the applicant

In the order, the Court opined that the occurrence of the alleged offense took place more than 5 year ago. In addition to this, pursuant to the arrest of the applicant, a sufficient amount of time, approximately 2 ½ months (72 Days), had been provided to the investigating agency to conduct the custodial interrogation of the applicant.

3.  Conduct of the applicant

The Court had observed in its order that the prosecution had not brought to the notice of the court that the conduct of applicant in judicial custody has been such that the court should be wary of granting in bail. Additionally, the Court also highlighted that the applicant is a permanent resident of Jammu and Kashmir, decreasing his chances of fleeing.  With this, the Court held that further detention of the applicant in the custody shall not serve any purpose. 

Order of the Court, imposition of stringent bail conditions:

The Court noted that Sultan had not been booked under those Sections of UAPA for which he would have been required to meet the stringent conditions of bail. Based on the observations of the Court highlighted above, the Court ordered in favour of the granting bail to Sultan.

“Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the allegations against the accused & the punishment prescribed for the same, the period of detention of the accused i.e. the accused has been in the custody from the last 72 days, the fact that the recovery has been made from the place of occurrence and sent to FSL and most of investigation has been completed, the interest of justice will be served in case the applicant is admitted to bail, at this stage.” (Para 13)

It is essential to note that the Court directed Sultan to furnish a bail bond of Rs.1,00,000/- each with one surety. As per the order of the court, certain bail conditions have also been imposed on Sultan which are stringent in nature in order to restrictions on Sultan’s communication methods and movements. These conditions include prohibition on using any secret/encrypted messaging apps or any proxy networks in order to remain anonymous and requiring permission from the court in case he wants to buy another mobile handset or a new SIM card in event of damage, loss, theft or upgrade. In addition to this, he has been directed to appear before the investigating officer as required, not tamper with evidence, and refrain from influencing witnesses.

The Court order also laid out detailed

“a) That the accused/applicant shall appear before the IO of the case as and when required;

1. b) The accused person/applicant shall not in any way misuse there liberty nor shall they get in touch with any of the witnesses or try to influence the course investigation.
2. c) That the accused person/applicant shall not temper with the evidence of the prosecution in any manner;
3. d) That the accused person/applicant shall not leave the territorial jurisdiction of this court without prior permission of the court.
4. e) That the accused person/applicant shall not change his residence during the period of bail, without informing this court;
5. f) That the accused person/applicant shall disclose/provide their mobile numbers issued in his name along with telecom network to Investigating Officer/ SHO of concerned police station;
6. g) That the accused person/applicant shall neither use any secret/encrypted messaging apps or any proxy network (viz VPNS) to remain anonymous and circumvent provisions of India Telegraph Act and Indian Wireless Act and orders/restrictions issued there under nor provide any type of telecommunication facility from his number or device to other person through hotspot, WiFi etc.
7. h) That, accused person/applicant shall will disclose the details of cell phone device to be used by him (IMEI number and make MI, Samsung, Oppo etc) to the investigating officer/ SHO of concerned police station;
8. i) The accused person/applicant shall not use any mobile number or device other than the ones disclosed to the Investigating Officer /SHO of concerned police station;
9. j) In case the accused person/applicant wants to buy another mobile handset or a new SIM Card in the event of damage, loss theft or to upgrade, he shall seek prior permission from this court and shall furnish the information to the IO of the case/ SHO of concerned police station; and
10. k) That the accused/applicant shall not commit any offence in the future”

The complete order can be read here:

Related:

Jammu & Kashmir HC: Being a critic of government no ground to detain a person, detaining authorities apply no mind

Jammu & Kashmir HC: Fahad Shah granted bail after spending 21 months in jail

Kashmir: Journalist Aasif Sultan jailed under PSA, after getting bail

The post Asif Sultan, Kashmiri Journalist, gets bail in yet another UAPA case! appeared first on SabrangIndia.

At the age of 34, Sharjeel Imam, who is currently a research scholar at Delhi’s Jawaharlal Nehru University is from Kako, a village in Bihar’s Jehanabad district. Imam studied his BTech at the Indian Institutes of Technology, Bombay and went on to serve as a Teaching Assistant at the same institute, following which he worked as a programmer in Copenhagen. Imam decided to further his education and in 2013, he enrolled in a Master’s program in Modern History at JNU after which he undertook an M.Phil. Programme in Modern Indian History, and a PhD. His MPhil thesis was titled ‘Exodus before Partition: The Attack on Muslims of Bihar in 1946.’

In December, during an anti-CAA protest at Jantar Mantar, Imam delivered a speech characterising the CAA as an assault on Muslim citizens of India. Furthermore, he advocated for a Chakka Jaam, arguing it was a well-tested means of democratic protest around the world to bring the attention of the authorities to address public demands.

Later, the Delhi Police used one of Imam’s speeches promoting the Chakka Jaam as evidence to file a case against him. They have accused him of aiding the February 2020 Delhi pogrom which saw over 40 people, mostly Muslims, killed in north-east Delhi.

Charges of sedition were levelled against Sharjeel Imam following the widespread dissemination of a two-minute excerpt from his speech at Aligarh Muslim University on January 16. This snippet was broadcasted by right-wing news channels and extensively shared on social media platforms on January 24, including a segment on Arnab Goswami’s Republic World. Right-wing media outlets interpreted the clip out of context and tried to portray him as an Islamic fundamentalist, subjecting him to a media trial. While in prison, like many other prisoners, he contracted COVID-19 in 2020. To which he stated, in an interview to Ajaz Ashraf, “My fear was not that I would die without meeting my family. It was rather that I would not be able to prove that I am not a terrorist.”

According to a report by The Wire, Imam has eight cases registered against him out of which he has been given bail 5 of them. For one of the remaining cases, he has never been arrested, and the other remaining cases are of the UAPA. According to the same report, Imam’s brother, Muzammil Imam, has stated that his bail plea has been listed about 46 times in the courts in the past four years.

Court Proceedings

Five Indian states namely Assam, Uttar Pradesh, Manipur, Arunachal Pradesh, and Delhi had taken legal action against Imam. Assam Police registered an FIR citing UAPA and IPC sections. The same day, Aligarh Police in Uttar Pradesh charged Imam with sedition. Manipur Police filed an FIR for offences like waging war, sedition, and vilification. Arunachal Pradesh’s Itanagar police filed an FIR for sedition and promoting enmity and Delhi Police filed an FIR for sedition and promoting religious enmity.

In November 2021, Imam was granted bail by Allahabad High Court for his AMU speech. The court stated that his speech did not amount to calling for violence. He was granted bail by a single bench comprising Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh sections 124 A (sedition), 153 A (promoting enmity between different groups) as well as a few other sections of the IPC.

In March 2022, Delhi High Court issued notice on his bail plea, noting that sedition required call to violence, “why should he not be granted bail?”. However, the Delhi High Court set aside a trial court’s order, to discharge Sharjeel Imam, Safoora Zargar, Asif Iqbal Tanha and eight others in the Jamia violence case.

In September 2022, Imam was granted bail by a Delhi court for allegedly making inflammatory speeches during anti-Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) protests in 2019. He was granted bail under the Code of Criminal Procedure’s Section 436A. The provision details bail for a person who has gone through detention for up to one-half of the maximum sentence specified for an offence during the trial period.

In November 2023, the judge presiding over the case was discharged and it was decided that the bail plea for the case would be heard afresh.

In January, 2024, the High Court directed the Delhi police to ask why Sharjeel Imam can’t be treated equally with those granted bail. As of now, Ishrat Jahan, Asif Iqbal Tanha, Natasha Narwal and Devangana Kalita have been granted bail in the case in 2021. The Delhi police has responded that it is for Imam to convince the court, and not up to the prosecution.

Related:

Human Rights Defenders

State-sponsored attempts at surveillance undermine the right to privacy, target specific individuals, and reveal gaps in legislation.

Census vs NPR

Opposition to the CAA is rooted in its discriminatory nature.

The post Four years behind bars, Sharjeel Imam still waits for a fair trial appeared first on SabrangIndia.

“The right not to be denied reasonable bail without just cause is an essential element of an enlightened criminal justice system”

– Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and MM Sundaresh, Supreme Court July 11, 2022

India follows a reformative form of justice system. Our criminal system is founded on the belief of not curtailing the rights of a prisoner and under trial. The system, thus far, also empowers constitutional courts to protect the fundamental rights guaranteed to every citizen of our country. Time and again, the Supreme Court of India has voiced this commitment and but for the dark blemish during the Emergency when personal liberty was curtailed, the Courts are bound to protect and uphold the right to personal liberty of all.

In recent years, a slew of definitive verdicts on increasing numbers and hardships faced by under trials, inordinate and even mala fide delays in hearing bail pleas have sneaked their way as judgements of the court, resulting in a rather mixed jurisprudence. This has then indicated a worrying shift away from holding personal freedom of those incarcerated as paramount.

Over the past 18 months and more, with the leadership of the Supreme Court under Chief Justices NV Ramanna, UU Lalit and DY Chandrachud, the issue of delayed bail hearings have been at the forefront. Pointing out that 80 per cent of those in jail are under trials, Justice Ramanna had listed hasty arrests and difficulty in getting bail as the major causes. The 74 day long short tenture of Chied Justice UU Lalit, too saw significant pronouncements in this regard. After assuming his office in 2022, Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud had emphasised on following the fundamental principle of ‘bail not jail’ while dealing with the cases of under trials languishing in jails. He had said “the number of under trials languishing in prisons in India reflects a paradoxical situation, and deprivation of liberty, even for a single day, is a day too many.”

2023 – A bumpy ride towards personal liberty

2023 saw trials courts denying bail indiscriminately, more so in cases concerning dissenting political prisoners including activists and journalists. Then, the Supreme Court emerged as the court of call for bail! The CJI remarked, “The reason the higher judiciary is flooded with bail cases is because of a certain reluctance from trial courts to grant bail.” The CJI also spoke about a “sense of fear” in judges in district courts in granting bail, especially in cases involving heinous crime.

Looking back at this calendar year, 2023, we look at some of the most crucial pronouncements by constitutional courts- both the hits and the misses. Following 2022 pronouncements, this year too, saw the Supreme Court make some strenuous efforts to streamline bail procedures and judicial attitudes adopted by lower courts. From responses of several state governments in these proceedings, it is evident that the freedom and liberty of the individual is a matter of low priority. Even the Supreme Court itself has erred on many occasions. In some cases, bail hearings (required to avoid the merits of the charges/case) actually unfolded as mini trials, denial of bail in economic offences saw a spiking trend; often getting a bail hearing heard has been an uphill task. Draconian statutes like the Unlawful (Prevention of Activities) Act and the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) that have scripted within a denial of basic freedoms saw hedgy ratifications by judgements of the Court.

Where courts rose to uphold personal liberty in 2023

Several positive judgments on grant of bail emerged from both the Supreme Court and the High Courts of India. In these, these constitutional courts set aside the erring judgments of the subordinate courts, emphasising on their poor application of law and fact while denying bail.

• Not instrumental in the alleged violence:

On January 28, Allahabad High Court granted bail to Javed Pump, leader of Welfare Party of India, who was deemed as the “mastermind” behind the violence in Prayagraj (formerly Allahabad) and had his house unlawfully demolished by the administration.  Violence had been reported in Prayagraj and Saharanpur after the Friday prayers in June 2022 when citizens were protesting against remarks made by erstwhile BJP spokesperson, Nupur Sharma berating Prophet Mohammad. While granting him bail, Justice Sameer Jain observed that given the evidence on record, including statements of witnesses and the accused, Javed did not appear to be the one who provoked any violence. The Court held that he, Javed was only instrumental in a large gathering of people assembling at the location.

• Action and re-education for those judicial officers, prosecuting agencies that violate bail orders:

On March 21, the Supreme Court had expressed disbelief over some of the trial courts failing to adhere to the Supreme Court’s order issued in the case of in Satender Kumar Antil vs Central Bureau of Investigation (Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and MM Sundaresh, July 2022). In the 52 page judgement delivered in this case, detailed directives had been issued to trial courts, sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and CRPC had been explained relying on a rich body of previous jurisprudence from the Supreme Court. The Court had re-emphasised that bail is the norm and jail should be the exception.

Expressing their frustration at the refusal of trial courts to adhere to this July 2022 judicial directive, the Supreme Court declared that the courts should not issue detention orders in a routine and mechanical manner, denying the accused’s liberty, and that such judges need to be sent to academies to “upgrade their knowledge.” The Supreme Court also warned that prosecuting agencies, including the CBI, magistrates and public prosecutors, would be “hauled up” if they continued to take a stand in trial courts contrary to the apex court verdict while opposing bail petitions.

In the Satender Kumar Antil case, the Supreme Court had laid out elaborate guidelines regarding arrest and bail. It had observed that non-compliance would have two consequences: a) sending people to custody when they were not required to be sent, and b) causing additional litigation, both of which the Court thought should not be tolerated.

• Failure to reasonable grounds to prove allegations of UAPA are prima facie true:

On April 17, the Supreme Court granted bail to two accused who were alleged to belong to CPI (Maoist) and were also charged with the murder of two Telugu Desam Party (TDP) leaders. In this 2018 murder case of TDP leaders, the bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Rajesh Bindal granted bail to the two on the grounds that the accused had been detained for more than four years and that charges had not yet been framed. The Court also observed that the materials on record failed to provide reasonable grounds for believing that the allegations against the appellants of commission of an offense under the UAPA are prima facie true, and thus the bar against granting bail under Section 43D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act was not invoked.

• Sessions court judge sent to judicial academy by SC for denying bail:

On May 2, a bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Ahsanuddin Amanullah of the Supreme Court asked the Allahabad High Court to immediately withdraw any judicial work from a sitting judge of the Sessions Court and send him to the judicial academy to upgrade his judicial assessment skills. The action came as a direct result of trial courts continuing to show reluctance to grant bail to accused in cases where custody was not needed despite the Supreme Court’s various rulings to be liberal in their approach and not pass detention order in a routine and mechanical way.

Notably, in one case of a matrimonial dispute, a Sessions judge in Lucknow rejected the anticipatory bail plea of a man and his mother, father and brother despite the fact that they were not arrested during the probe. In another case, an accused suffering from cancer was denied bail by a CBI court in Ghaziabad.

• SC holds Gujarat HC’s observation in Teesta Setalvad’s case both ‘perverse’, ‘contradictory’ while granting her bail:

On July 19, a Supreme Court bench comprising Justices BR Gavai, AS Bopanna and Dipankar Datta had quashed the Gujarat High Court’s order which denied Teesta Setalvad regular bail, opining that the High Court’s observations were “perverse”. The bench had pointed out that there was a “self-contradiction” in the High Court’s order, as the court almost commented on findings of guilt (merit) despite observing that it could not, consider the merits of any allegation while deciding bail. Most importantly, Justice Gavai had also pointed out that the FIR in the case filed by the Gujarat Police, ostensibly on observations made by the Supreme Court in the Zakia Jafri case, were made without hearing co-petitioner Teesta Setalvad, going against the principles of natural justice.

During the hearings, the bench had also asked a number of incisive and critical questions to the prosecution, making a note of other crucial observations. Firstly, the Supreme Court was bemused to note the Gujarat HC’s approach in holding that the offences should be presumed to be admitted against Setalvad since the petitioner did not file any petition to quash the charge sheet. Secondly, the bench had also pointed to the long delay in filing a case against Setalvad given the fact that the Zakia Jafri case was being litigated since 2008.

The Supreme Court had, on September 2, 2022 first granted interim bail to human rights defender and journalist, Teesta Setalvad after which prolonged hearings for regular bail, took place, every six weeks before the Gujarat High Court. After close to ten months of this, on a Saturday, a single judge of the Gujarat High Court not just rejected bail but refused to grant her stay to appeal to the Supreme Court, directing that she “surrender immediately.” This too was adversely commented upon by the Supreme Court.

• Bail order cannot be cryptic and casual, needs to be backed by reasons considering vital aspects:

On July 24, the Supreme Court bench cancelled the bail order granted by the Rajasthan High Court, granting bail to 3 people involved in the case of an honour killing. The Bench comprising Justices B.V. Nagrathna and Prashant Mishra was hearing an appeal against the said bail order. Setting aside the “cryptic” and “casual” orders passed by the High Court granting bail to the accused, the Supreme Court observed that a prima-facie conclusion must be supported by reasons and must be arrived at after having regard to the vital facts of the case brought on record.

The bench stated that even in the past, the Supreme Court had ruled that an order granting bail in a mechanical manner, without recording reasons, would suffer from the vice of non-application of mind, rendering it illegal. The bench then reiterated and emphasised on the factors to be taken into consideration for bail, namely the seriousness of the offense, the likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice, the impact of the release of the accused on the prosecution witnesses, and the likelihood of the accused tampering with evidence.

• Mere possessing literature which propagates overthrowing government does not attract UAPA:

On July 28, Supreme Court bench of Aniruddha Bose and Sudhanshu Dhulia granted bail to activists and Elgar Parishad members Vernon Gonsalves and Arun Ferreira in the Bhima Koregaon violence case. While granting the two bail, the bench held that, though the charges against the two accused are serious, that alone cannot be the reason for denying bail. The Supreme Court made certain very important observation in the case, significantly holding that mere possession of certain literature through which violent acts and methods of overthrowing democratically elected government may be propagated would not on its own attract the provisions of Section 15(1)(b) of the UAPA.

The court also observed that none of the material against these accused, whether the electronic recovery from the co-accused, material recovered from the accused themselves or the witness statements, attributed any direct violent act against them.

• Duty of the court to be more onerous, bail cannot be denied just because serious allegations

On November 9, a man booked under provisions of UAPA was granted bail by the Punjab & Haryana High Court on the ground that no prima facie case had been made out against him. The man had been accused of allegedly planning to commit some terrorist acts based on relations with Pakistan. The said judgment, delivered by a division bench of Acting Chief Justice Ritu Bahri and Justice Manisha Batra, notes that no prima facie case had been made against the accused which points to him being part of any conspiracy to form membership of a terrorist gang with the aim of committing acts against the interest of the nation. The bench also emphasised on the duty of the court to be more exhaustive in cases where stringent provisions of the UAPA are invoked as bail cannot just be denied because serious allegations are made.

• Charges of “abetting terrorism,” “waging war against the country” against Fahad Shah quashed:

On November 17, the Jammu and Kashmir High Court granted bail to Peerzada Fahad Shah, Kashmiri journalist and editor of the Kashmir Walla. The court quashed the charges of “abetting terrorism,” “waging war against the country,” and “promoting enmity” that Shah had been booked under the UAPA. In February of 2022, Shah was arrested by the police in relation to an alleged “incorrect reporting” on his portal regarding an encounter in Pulwama wherein three militants, including a top commander, had been gunned down. Shah still remains in jail as he continues to face trial under Section 18 of the UAPA. Finally, charged were quashed against Fahad Shah on November 17, 2023 and he was released from jail on November 23, 2023.

• Being a critic of government no ground to detain a person, detaining authorities apply no mind:

On November 19, the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court quashed the detention of Sajad Ahmad Dar, a Kashmir-based journalist, while criticising the tendency of the authorities to detain persons for simply being the critics of the government. The High Court termed such detentions to be an abuse of the preventive detention law. Dar had been under detention since January 16, 2022 under the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act (PSA). While detaining Dar, the detaining authorities had accused him of tweeting and making such controversial statements that promoted enmity and were prejudicial to maintenance of public order and security of the State.

In a judgment quashing the FIR, the High Court bench comprising Chief Justice N. Kotiswar Singh and Justice MA Chowdhary observed that Dar had not been provided with the relevant documents required under law to make an adequate representation against his detention. The court had further noted that there were no specific allegations made against Dar to show that his activities could be attributed to be prejudicial to the security of the State. Observing this, the Court found the allegations to be vague and general and without any specific instance to show that Dar had been working against national interests. Following the aforementioned observation, the bench of the High Court declared unequivocally that an individual cannot be imprisoned solely for the reason that he criticizes the government. Finally, charged were quashed against Sajad Dhar on November 19, 2023 though he has yet to be released.

• Detention “illegal and unsustainable”, grounds of detention and other relevant documents not supplied to detenu:

On December 7, the detention order against Aasif Sultan, who had been detained under the Public Safety Act (PSA) since April 2022, was quashed by the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court. In the judgment delivered by Justice Vinod Chatterji Koul, the court observed that the said detention order was illegal and unsustainable as the detaining authority failed to provide Sultan with all the relevant material on which the order was based. It was noted by the court that only five leaves of the relevant documents had been provided by the authorities to Sultan, violating his rights under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India and Section 13 of the J&K Public Safety Act, 1978. Notably, crucial documents such as copies of First Information Reports (FIRs) and statements had not been supplied to the detenu.

Sultan, a journalist working for the Kashmir Narrator, was arrested in August 2018 and booked under various charges, including sedition and criminal conspiracy. He was granted bail in these cases, but was subsequently re-arrested and detained under the PSA in April 2022.

• ED cannot keep people under pre-trial detention for so long:

On December 8, the Supreme Court granted bail to Pernod Ricard India regional head Benoy Babu in connection with a money-laundering case arising out of the alleged Delhi excise policy scam. A bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and SVN Bhatti stated that that the Enforcement Directorate (ED) cannot keep someone behind bars for 13 months with no charges being framed. Notably, the same bench had denied bail to former Delhi deputy chief minister. The case arose out of a first information report registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), alleging that officials of the Delhi government had connived to grant liquor licenses to certain traders in exchange for bribes. The central agencies’ case is that the excise policy was tweaked and the profit margins changed to benefit certain traders.

Judgments granting interim protection-

This year saw many journalists, activists and lawyers being booked by the state for exercising their rights. A common thread between the ones targeted was that these people had voiced their opinions against state policies or agencies backed by state. In most of these cases, the Supreme Court came to the rescue of the ones being booked and provided them interim protection from coercive actions.

• Protection to independent Assam MLA Akhil Gogoi from arrest

On February 21, the Supreme Court has granted protection to Akhil Gogoi, an independent MLA from Assam, against arrest in a case related to the anti-Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) protests and alleged Maoists links, which was being investigated by the National Investigation Agency (NIA). The legislator, who had reportedly been outspoken against the central government during the anti-CAA protests, had approached the Supreme Court against the February 9 ruling of the Gauhati High Court, which had allowed the special NIA court in Assam to proceed with framing charges against him in one of the two cases.

• Protection in sedition case against lawyer who accompanied fact-finding team to Manipur

A three membered team of National Federation of Indian Women, associated with the Communist party, had gone to violence struck state of Manipur in the month of July. The state had been under the tight grip of ethnic violence from May 3, 2023. After the investigation, a news conference was held in Imphal on July 1 and a press release with the team’s findings was also released. The said the NIFW team had come to the conclusion that the State was behind several violent episodes in Manipur, and thus termed them to be “state sponsored”.  Following this, on July 8, the Manipur Police had filed a FIR, charging advocate Deeksha Dwivedi and NIFW representatives with sedition, defamation, making assertions prejudicial to national-integration and, other related offences. On July 11, the Supreme Court had granted interim protection to Dwivedi.

• Protection to Editors Guild of India after multiple FIRs filed for Manipur Reportage

On September 6, the Supreme Court granted interim protection from arrest to four members of the Editors Guild of India who were facing face multiple FIRs filed by Manipur police. These FIRs had been filed against the EGI after a fact-finding report had been published by the members on the ethnic violence that has shaken the north-eastern state of Manipur. The Chief Minister of Manipur N Biren Singh had told media that his government had filed an FIR against the president and 3 Guild members for “trying to incite ethnic clashes”. The Chief Minister has earlier labelled the guild as anti-national and anti-state.

• Protection to two journalists from Gujarat police arrest over article against Adani Group:

On November 3, a Supreme Court bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and Prashant Kumar Mishra granted interim protection from arrest to journalists Ravi Nair and Anand Mangnale, OCCRP South Asia editor. The two had moved the Supreme Court challenging the summons issued against them by the Ahmedabad crime branch, asking them to appear in person for questioning with respect to the police’s “preliminary probe” into their article published on the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) website. The article was reportedly critical of the Adani group.

Where courts faltered as did the right to personal liberty, in 2023

While denial of bail, unless absolutely made out, should not be the rule in any democratic country, and denial should be the rule when offences against vulnerable sections are made out, here are two judgments that reflect a regressive trend.

In one, bail was granted to a vigilante allegedly accused of brutally killing a Muslim man. In the second, another man was denied bail, even when the accusations against him were not made out, especially enough to justify the charge under a draconian law. This begs the question, how and why are there disparate standards applied in granting bail especially when the law lays down that only and especially in cases of murder, can and should bail be denied?

• Bail to cow vigilante Puneeth Kerehalli, accused of killing a Muslim man:

On April 1, the Karnataka High Court granted conditional bail to cow vigilante murder accused Puneeth Kerehalli and four others who were arrested in connection with the murder of a Muslim man named Idrees Pasha. They had been arrested on April 5 as they were suspected of brutally lynching to death a Muslim man on suspicion of cow theft in Karnataka’s Ramanagara district. Kerehalli and other accused were booked on charges of murder, assault, criminal intimidation, wrongful restraint and intentional insult to provoke breach of peace. All accused are known to be associated with Rashtra Rakshana Pade, founded by Kerehalli with links to supremacist Hindutva outfits. Notably, they had been denied bail by the trial court, after which they had moved the high court.

• Denial of bail to Manish Sisodia even after absence of any creation of proceeds of crime:

On October 30, a Supreme Court bench comprising Justices Sanjeev Khanna and SVN Bhatti denied bail to former Delhi deputy chief minister and Aam Aadmi Party leader Manish Sisodia’s in the Enforcement Directorate case. The CBI arrested Sisodia on February 26, charging him with taking a bribe for tweaking the excise policy of the Delhi government to favour a liquor lobby. On March 8, the ED formally charged Sisodia under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).  Since then, Sisodia has been in prison, having had his bail denied by the Delhi High Court and the lower courts.

This particular verdict rejecting bail plea of Sisodia is likely to have an adverse impact bail jurisprudence generally, especially grant of bail under the dreaded PMLA.

While ironically, in his judgement, Justice Khanna had raised “some doubts” about some of the charges levelled by the ED and yet, he refrained “from delving… in depth and detail into some of the legal questions arising in the matter” while denying Sisodia bail. While the bench during the widely publicised hearings in the case, had often commented that it found no substance or strength in the ED’s case against Sisodia, they still provided to deny him his personal liberty. The order simply stated that Sisodia could file a fresh bail application in this case if the prosecution did not complete the trial by February 2024. Sisodia, has been in jail since February 2023. In effect, the bench ensured that Sisodia is not let out on bail before completing at least a year behind bars, without trial.

Justice Delayed is Justice Denied

‘The Truth Will Out’

A political prisoner can be defined as someone who has been imprisoned because that person’s actions or beliefs are contrary to those to their government. As per Assistance Association for Political Prisoners, a political prisoner is anyone who has been arrested because of their perceived or real active involvement or supporting role in political movements. The arrest of such people can be associated with political motivation, regardless of the laws they have been sentenced under.

India does not recognise political prisoners. In the past few years, we saw the invocation of draconian union and state laws such as UAPA, PSA, NSA and PMLA being increasingly invoked against activists, students, journalists, writers, lawyers, human rights defenders, etc. for speaking or writing against state policies. The mindless application of these laws saw many (and in majority) Muslim, Dalit and Tribal activists being incarcerated by the state without any hope for trials.

Throughout this year, we saw many such cases of political prisoners and human rights defenders awaiting bail and personal freedom, being mentioned before the Supreme Court and High Court, yet going unheard. These have been adjourned for long periods of time for no particular reason. As a result several academics, youth leaders and advocates, in 2023, continue to languish behind bars as under trials in our overcrowded jails, booked under charges that are yet to be proven.

Enduring prolonged incarceration due to excessive delays in court proceedings

• Umar Khalid:

In September, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Khalid, had appeared before a Supreme Court bench of Justices Bela Trivedi and Dipankar Datta had said that he would, in a matter of twenty minutes show that there is no case against Khalid.

“I can demonstrate in twenty minutes that there is no case at all,” Sibal had said.

The bench was hearing the bail application of former JNU scholar and activist Umar Khalid in connection with the Delhi riots larger conspiracy case. He had been behind bars for over three years, since September 2020, awaiting his trial under the UAPA for his alleged involvement in the larger conspiracy surrounding the communal violence that broke out in February 2020 in the national capital. The hearing had been adjourned on that day.

On November 29, a separate bench comprising Justices Bela M Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma adjourned the hearing on the bail plea for Khalid to January 10. His bail plea had been pending before the Supreme Court since the month of May 18, 2023 when notice was issued on his special leave petition against the Delhi High Court’s denial of bail filed on April 16, 2023. This has, since, suffered multiple adjournments.

• Shoma Sen:

On December 6, a Supreme Court bench of Justices Aniruddha Bose and Augustine George Masih was hearing a special leave petition filed by Shoma Sen challenging a January 17 order of the Bombay High Court, by which it directed her to approach the special court trying her case, for bail. Sen is an English Professor who has been lodged in jail since June 2018 for offences under the UAPA in connection with the 2018 caste-based violence that broke out at Bhima Koregaon in Pune, and for having alleged links with the proscribed outfit, Communist Party of India (Maoists).

The hearing in Sen’s case was scheduled for hearing on December 7, but owing to a change in the composition of the bench, will now only be on January 10.

• Jyoti Jagtap:

On December 7, a Supreme Court bench comprising Justices Aniruddha Bose, Sudhanshu Dhulia and Augustine George Masih adjourned the matter of Jyoti Jagtap’s bail plea to the third week of January, after Shoma Sen’s regular bail plea has been heard. Jagtap is an anti-caste activist and musical performer who has been incarcerated as an under trial since September 8, 2020. She is also an accused in the Bhima Koregaon–Elgar Parishad violence case and has been charged under the UAPA.

• Delhi riots Conspiracy case:

On November 1, it was announced that the bail pleas of Sharjeel Imam, Khalid Saifi and other persons accused in the Delhi riots “larger conspiracy” case will be heard afresh by the Delhi high court in the year 2024. A special bench headed by Justice Siddharth Mridul, who has now been elevated as the chief justice of the Manipur high court, had reserved its order in three cases – including the bail pleas of Imam, Saifi, Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shadab Ahmed, Athar Khan, Shifa ur Rehman and Salim Khan; and the Delhi police’s appeal to cancel the bail granted to accused Ishrat Jahan. Since the elevation of Justice Mridul, a division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Shailender Kaur will start hearing the appeals fresh from January 2024.

• Mahesh Raut:

On September 21, five years after Mahesh Raut, a 36-year-old tribal rights activist, was arrested for his alleged role in the Elgar Parishad case, the Bombay high court had granted him bail. The High Court bench comprising Justices A.S. Gadkari and Sharmila Deshmukh had expressed the view that many sections of the UAPA applied against Raut were not tenable. The court also took his long incarceration into consideration and the fact that Raut has no criminal antecedents, the division bench had granted him bail.  However, a week’s stay had been granted against the application of the HC’s judgment on the request of NIA so as to have time to appeal in the Supreme Court. Several weeks have elapsed and yet the appeal continues to be pending before the Supreme Court bench of Justice Bela Trivedi while Raut continues to be incarcerated in jail.

• Prabir Purkayastha and Amit Chakravarty

On October 3, NewsClick founder and journalist Prabir Purkayastha and its human resources head Amit Chakraborty were arrested by Delhi Police Special Cell under the charge of UAPA. Multiple raids had been conducted at the Newsclick offices and the homes of associated journalists following allegations that the news organisation received money to spread Chinese propaganda. A plea had been filed by the two arrested against their arrest under the anti-terror law along with an interim bail for Purkayastha on medical grounds. Regular bail pleas for both have also been filed. In November, a bench of Justices BR Gavai and Prashant Kumar Mishra had adjourned the hearing stated that it would hear the petition immediately after the Diwali break. The petitions are yet to be heard and are likely now to come up in January 2024 after the winter break.

The ones who bail petition is yet to be heard in the courts-

Many other names, such as journalist Rupesh Kumar Singh, Kashmiri journalist Irfan Mehraj and Kashmiri human rights activist Khurram Parvez do not find themselves on the above list as their bail pleas are yet to be mentioned in the Courts. In September of 2023, anti-CAA activist Shadab Ahmad, incarcerated for over three years in cases related to the 2020 Delhi pogrom, had reportedly developed abdominal tuberculosis. His family had been appealing for his release, to no avail.

In Odisha, 9 Dalit-Adivasi activists were booked under UAPA for leading the Niyamgiri movement. The Niyamgiri movement is a grassroots people’s movement against big corporations. The FIR against them came on the same day that marks the International Day of the World’s Indigenous People. There is no information available for the status of their bail or trials.

Out of the 16 arrested in the Bhima Koregaon violence case, six of them (including Raut) have been granted regular bail from either the High Court or the Supreme Court. One of the accused, Father Stan Swamy, an 84-year-old Jesuit priest and tribal rights activist, died of failing health in July 2021 while in judicial custody. Gautam Navlakha had been under house arrest. As many as eight of the accused still remain in jail, including activists Sudhir Dhawale, Rona Wilson, Hany Babu, Surendra Gadling, Professor Shoma Sen, Ramesh Gaichor, Sagar Gorkhe and Jyoti Jagtap.

Many miles to go…..

The list of political under trials and political prisoners is not exhaustive and every state, regardless of political affiliations uses the ‘jail stick’ to curtail protest and individual freedoms. As numbers of under trials in India’s jail touch close to 5,00,000 with conditions in prisons including the grant of effective legal aid often being a misnomer, an independent judiciary is required to step in to curb repressive state acts.

While several judgements provide guidelines and directives to district and trial courts to grant speedy bail after a correct understanding of the law –even flagging the urgent need for a Bail Statute (law), even India’s constitutional courts have often faltered in upholding freedom and liberty. Individual aberrations or political considerations, these verdicts have resulted in a mixed jurisprudence on the right to every Indian to be granted bail.

2023’s journey reveals a bumpy road towards personal liberty.

Related:

How fundamental are our rights? An examination of the judgement in the Marriage Equality Case: SC

How difficult is it to obtain Bail under the UAPA?

What does it take to secure bail under UAPA?

Mere association or support to terror organisation, not sufficient to attract UAPA: SC

The post India’s constitutional courts navigate challenges in upholding personal freedom over incarceration appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The NAJ, DUJ, KUJ and APWJF have further demanded a Media Commission of India in the lines of the First and Second Press Commissions, end to the Labour Codes and increasing attempts to gag the media.

Noting that “several journalists, including eminent editor Prabir Purkayastha, are in jail for exposing this government and the forces that control this government. Journalists such as Siddique Kappan are facing criminal charges, including UAPA charges, after spending years in prison. In Kashmir many journalists such as Fahad Shah, Sajad Gul, Irfan Mehraj, Aasif Sultan and Majid Hyderi have been arrested while most other journalists live in fear. Since 2010, as many as 15 journalists and two media managers have been charged under UAPA, seven are still behind bars. Sedition charges have been filed against leading journalists like Vinod Dua, Mrinal Pande, Rajdeep Sardesai and others.

Besides, defamation charges have been filed against journalists like Paranjoy Guha Thakurta, Ravi Nair and many others. Raids on media, seizure of electronic devices and harassment of media employees is becoming another menace.”

The charter has stressed the fact that there has been no Wage Boards for the past 13 years, nor any willingness to constitute another one, or even grant interim relief.

The letter is timed with the current session of Parliament.

The detailed charter of demands, filed by all four unions representing 1,000 journalists relates to the Free Functioning of the Media and may be read below:

“The media has an effective role to play in a democratic society. Leaders of our national movement upheld this concept after Independence and the Constitution too values freedom of expression as a fundamental right. This concept was the base for passing the Working Journalists and other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act (known as Working Journalists Act) and the Working Journalists (Fixation of rates of wages) Act in 1955 and 1958 by the Parliament of our country.

“The works of two Press Commissions were also broadly in this direction. The Parliament too has played a role in enriching this principle of ensuring a free press in the country and the rights and dignity of journalists and co-workers-all of which are being unfortunately negated lately.

“The term of the 17th Lok Sabha will end within a few months. This winter session will be the last full-fledged session of the 17th Lok Sabha. As the country is moving towards the next general elections in 2024, we, the media fraternity would like to make some submissions before the Parliamentarians and leaders of political parties.

“As trade unions of experienced journalists who cover and write about a myriad issues and problems in the country we have no qualms in saying that the last five years have been the most dangerous years for journalists and journalism in this country. The country’s ranking in the Freedom of Press Index has consistently declined during these years and stands as low as 161 out of 180 countries.

“Several journalists, including eminent editor Prabir Purkayastha, are in jail for exposing this government and the forces that control this government. Journalists such as Siddique Kappan are facing criminal charges, including UAPA charges, after spending years in prison. In Kashmir many journalists such as Fahad Shah, Sajad Gul, Irfan Mehraj, Aasif Sultan and Majid Hyderi have been arrested while most other journalists live in fear. Since 2010, as many as 15 journalists and two media managers have been charged under UAPA, seven are still behind bars. Sedition charges have been filed against leading journalists like Vinod Dua, Mrinal Pande, Rajdeep Sardesai and others. Defamation charges have been filed against journalists like Paranjoy Guha Thakurta, Ravi Nair and many others. Raids on media, seizure of electronic devices and harassment of media employees is becoming another menace.

“Social media handles and YouTube channels of independent journalists are often forced to shut or censored for speaking or showing truth. Many of the independent YouTubers were leading anchors and editors who were forced out of TV news channels. Big corporate companies and other vested interests, have cemented their control over media, despite our warnings that cross- media ownership is dangerous for this country and its democracy. Journalists have been retrenched by managements under pressure from their corporate funders. Traditional family owned newspapers and media houses too are forced to bow before the pressure from the market or the governments.

“We deeply regret the weaponisation of sections of the media to spread hate. A rabid communal agenda has divided and polarized the people, threatening the unity and integrity of the Indian state. We hold the corporate media, particularly TV channels and their anchors and editors, culpable for these divisions and fissures in society as much as politicians.

“On the other hand, we note with dismay the increasing attempts to ‘regulate’ the media, particularly the relatively independent digital media and social media through amendments and changes to the laws. The IT Rules, 2021, the Registration of Press and Periodicals Bill, 2022 and the Broadcasting Services (Regulation) Bill, 2023 are the most recent such moves that threaten democracy and free speech.

“The Union Government has also dealt journalism a big blow by submerging the two above mentioned Acts for journalists into the Labour Codes, reducing our rights. These Acts were the last resort for a journalist to fight the pressures from the management, the corporate advertisers or autocratic governments.

“It has been 13 years since the Centre accepted the recommendations of the Majithia Wage Board, which was the last Wage Board for journalists and press workers. The Centre has not shown any willingness to constitute another Wage Board and this is impacting the lives of many journalists and workers.

“As trade unions, we believe that collective struggles should be launched along with workers, peasants, youth and students to protect the democracy of our country. We urge you to help us in raising the voices of independent press in Parliament and other forums.

“We have certain concrete suggestions to cross over this crisis of democracy. Here is our fourteen point charter of demands, which we request you to consider.

1. A law to protect journalists from arbitrary arrests and malicious prosecution is the need of the hour. Journalists cannot be treated as terrorists.

2. A recent amendment to the IT Rules, 2021 gives not just the Press Information Bureau but also all Union government ministries and departments the powers to demand that news they object to be taken down by social media companies. We demand that these Rules aimed at censoring the small, independent digital media be withdrawn immediately.

Other moves such as the reported inclusion of digital media in the draft Registration of Press and Periodicals Bill, 2022, to controls news and views carried on digital media through any electronic device, must be reviewed. The draft Broadcasting Services (Regulation) Bill, 2023 which is meant to replace the Cable Television Networks (Regulation Act), will affect not just streaming platforms like Netflix and Amazon Prime Video but also individuals putting news and current affairs online on platforms like YouTube and WhatsApp. These bills must be discussed in the public domain, through public hearings and consultations with all stakeholders including journalists’ organizations before being passed.

3. Early setting up of a common Media Council for print, electronic and digital media, with representatives from the media, media unions and independent public persons.
4. Setting up of a Media Commission to study the entire media like the First and Second Press Commissions and to recommend remedial measures, in view of sweeping changes since the onset of imperialist globalisation and the deplorable condition of journalists and non-journalists in media establishments.
5. Putting responsible checks on cross-media ownership.
6. Immediate steps to help the growth of national language news and feature agencies through a National Newspaper and Feature Agencies Development Corporation.
7. Repeal the four Labour Codes. Restore previous pro-labour legislations. Restore the two Working Journalists Acts with a simple amendment to include broadcast and digital media.
8. Implement the last Wage Board recommendations as per the historic Supreme Court ruling of February 7th, 2014. Set up fast track courts with time bound implementation in view of pendency of cases. Constitute a new Wage Board at the earliest. Interim relief is overdue.
9. Proper Risk Insurance cover for media workers and their equipment as well as a decent Pension Scheme. Currently, the contributory pension that journalists get is a pittance, seldom more than a couple of thousand rupees.
10. Ensure a one-year package to the premier national news agency United News of India to help sustain regular payment of long delayed salaries and payments to retrenched employees including their gratuity and other dues. Some of them are in critical condition. The once virtually self-reliant UNI Urdu news service is barely surviving, amidst celebrations of 200 years of the Urdu press. Attempts to discriminate against another premier national news agency, the PTI, must stop.
11. India’s record of imposing Internet bans is the worst in the world, with 741 shutdowns from 2012 to July 2023. Shutdowns seriously impede the work of journalists who are unable to send their news reports, stories and photographs at such times. Shutdowns have been imposed for everything from riots to stopping cheating in exams! This abuse of law must be stopped through appropriate rules and guidelines.
12. The laws relating to Sedition, Defamation and arbitrary detention laws like the UAPA are being increasingly misused to arrest and prosecute journalists. Journalists have been booked even for tweets and Facebook posts. These laws should be reviewed and repealed to prevent their misuse.
13. Given the increasing tendency of media companies to outsource work, provisions need to be made for freelance journalists, stringers and consultants, to ensure that payments by media companies are both timely and adequate. The number of such media workers is growing by the day but there are no proper legal provisions for their welfare and social security.
14. And lastly, but most importantly, release all the journalists, academics and activists arrested arbitrarily.

We sincerely hope that you will consider our demands and respond to them with the earnestness and immediacy they deserve. Today journalism, independent journalism in particular, is battered and bruised as never before. Surely immediate steps are needed to save it and ensure that the print, broadcast and digital media are allowed to co-exist and flower and bloom in a responsible manner.”

The statement has been signed by S.K.Pande, President-DUJ,  Sujata Madhok, General Secretary –DUJ  A.M. Jigeesh, President- NAJ,N.Kondaiah, Secretary General-NAJ, G.Anjaneyulu, General Secretary-APWJF and  R.Kiran Babu, General Secretary –   KUWJ

Related:

SKM: Farmers to protest against union government’s attempt to undermine farmers’ protest through Newsclick FIR 

Newsclick: Resounding voices of solidarity from all over in defence of press freedom

DUJ Protests freezing of media accounts

The post Stop treating journalists like terrorists, media unions tell government as the 17th Lok Sabha begins appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The said judgment was delivered by a division bench of Acting Chief Justice Ritu Bahri and Justice Manisha Batra. The bench noted that no prima facie case has been made against the accused which points to him being part of any conspiracy to form membership of a terrorist gang with the aim of committing acts against the interest of the nation.

“On the basis of allegations as levelled against the appellant, prima facie no case can be stated to have been made out to presume that there had been any conspiracy between the appellant and the co-accused to form membership of a terrorist gang and to commit acts against the interest of the nation,” the bench ordered in its judgment. (Para 10)

Facts of the case:

The Court was deciding the bail plea of one Gursewak Singh, filed against the order of the Special Judge, Amritsar dismissing his bail application. It was alleged that Singh was a part of the gang who was hatching plans to commit some terrorist acts in different places in the country. Singh had been accused of having relations with “enemy country Pakistan” through mobile phones, wireless sets and other technological instruments. It was also submitted that as per disclosure statement of the co-accused the appellant and other accused had robbed 30 kg of gold from IIFL Gold Loan Branch, Gill Road, Ludhiana.

Notably, the FIR (First Information Report) lodged against the accused in 2020 invoked Sections 379-B (Snatching after preparation made for causing death, hurt or restraint), 382 (Theft after preparation made for causing death, hurt or restraint), 399 (Making preparation to commit dacoity), 402 (Assembling for committing dacoity), 411 (Dishonestly receiving stolen property), 467 (Forgery of valuable security, will, etc.), 468 (Forgery for purpose of cheating), 472 (Making or possessing counterfeit seal with intent to commit forgery), 473 (Making or possessing counterfeit seal with intent to commit forgery) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Sections 15, 16, 17, 18, 18B of UAPA and Section 25 sub sections 6, 7 and 8 of Arms Act and Section 52/54 of Prisons Act were also invoked in the FIR.

In February 2021, the Special Court had dismissed the application filed by Singh for regular bail. Later, in April 2022, the Special Court had also dismissed Singh’s application requesting grant of default bail under Section 167 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). A Special Leave Petition (SLP) was then filed by the accused before the Supreme Court. The same was set aside by the Supreme Court bench and the matter was remanded to the High Court with a direction to decide this appeal on its own merits. The current bail plea was now before the Punjab and Haryana High Court.

Submission by the appellant:

Singh (appellant in the bail plea moved) submitted that he had spent a period of three and a half years in custody. It was argued that that the entire prosecution in this case was carried out without obtaining any prior sanction from the competent authority. In addition to this, the appellant had alleged that no recovery had been effected from the appellant in this case, and the recovery of one pistol and four live cartridges was falsely planted upon the appellant in a case registered at Police Station Mohali which did not amount to commission of act of any terrorist activity. It was claimed that the appellant had been arrested on mere suspicion and no specific part whatsoever had been attributed to him qua commission of the offences he was accused of. Advocate Rajiv Malhotra had appeared for the appellant.

Submission by the respondent:

The plea filed by the accused was resisted by the respondents. It was alleged by the appellant and co-accused Gagandeep were accomplices in several crimes since long and had committed several crimes. They had relations with anti-national elements abroad and were committing unlawful activities. It was further clarified by the respondents that the sanction for prosecution of the appellant and other accused had been sought by the Investigating Agency in 2020. It was submitted by the respondents that there were serious allegations against the appellant and, therefore, it was stressed that he did not deserve to be given concession of bail and that the appeal was not maintainable. Alankar Narula, Additional Advocate General, Punjab had appeared for the respondents.

Observations by the Court:

On the issue of sanction of prosecution by competent authority, it was highlighted by the Court that that as per Section 45 of UAPA, no Court shall take cognizance of any offence falling under Chapter IV without previous sanction of the Central Government or as the case may be, the State Government. In this regards, the bench noted that the sanction for prosecution of the appellant and co-accused in this case had not been granted by the competent authority till the date of presentation of the challan and it was accorded later and then the said sanction is shown to have been filed in the Court along with supplementary challan report.

The court therefore held it to be “debatable as to whether the Court was even competent to take cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 16, 17, 18 and 18B of UAPA till the date when sanction was granted under Section 45 of UAPA.” (Para 8)

In regards to the allegation of committing anti-national activities and proving the involvement of the appellant in those crimes, the court observed that no specific role has been attributed to Singh to support the allegations of being involved in anti-national activities. “No material has been brought forward by the prosecution to show the connection of the present appellant with the foreign contacts with which he along with co-accused is alleged to be involved in promoting the anti-national activities.” (Para 9)

On the charges invoked under IPC and the Arms Act, the bench held that “Further, from a perusal of the material placed on record, no specific and active role is shown to have been attributed to the present appellant qua commission of offences punishable under the provisions of IPC and Arms Act (for which he has been charge-sheeted).” (Para 10)

The bench also relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in the case of Vernon v. The State of Maharashtra and another.

The bench also emphasised on the duty of the court to be more exhaustive in cases where stringent provisions of the UAPA are invoked as bail cannot just be denied because serious allegations are made. “The statute of UAPA has stringent provisions but that makes the duty of the Court to be more onerous and it is well settled that merely because allegations were serious, on that reason alone, bail cannot be denied,” the Court observed in Para 10 of the judgment.

“He is in custody w.e.f. 05.07.2020 (July 5, 2020). Only 1 out of 38 witnesses have been examined so far. No recovery whatsoever had been effected from the appellant in this case and one revolver and ten live cartridges were allegedly recovered from him in another case which was registered prior to this case at Police Station Mohali,” the court added. (Para 10)

Decision of the Court:

The judgment in the current case had been reserved on September 12, 2023. On November 9, weighing upon the aforementioned observations made by the Court in the said case, the Court concluded that on the basis of allegations as levelled against the appellant, prima facie no case can be held to have been made out for the court to presume that there had been any conspiracy between the appellant and the co-accused to form membership of a terrorist gang and to commit acts against the interest of the nation.

The court further stated that since the appellant has been in custody for a period of about three and half years and that the trial is likely to take time, the Court granted the relief. “Keeping in view the fact that the appellant is in custody for a period of about three and half years, that the trial is likely to take time and the entire attendant circumstances of the case, in our opinion, the appeal deserves to be allowed,” the bench noted in Para 11 of the judgment.

With this, the High Court bench set aside the order of Special Court rejecting the bail to Singh.

The complete judgment can be read here:

Related:

UAPA slapped on activists of Niyamgiri Suraksha Samiti: Kahalahandi, Orissa

Beyond UAPA: Examining other central and state laws granting vast powers to Govt

UAPA accused to be granted interim bail if prosecution sanction not granted within specified time: P&H HC

Bhima Koregaon Case: Mahesh Raut, youngest accused, granted bail by the Bombay HC!

Supreme Court punishes judge for denying bail, sends him to judicial academy

The post Punjab & Haryana HC: Duty of the court to be more onerous, bail cannot be denied just because serious allegations appeared first on SabrangIndia.

“The central government, having regard to the circumstances, is further of opinion that it is necessary to declare the Meitei extremist organisations… as ‘unlawful associations’ and accordingly, in exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to sub-section (3) of section 3 of the said Act, the central government hereby directs that this notification shall, subject to any order that may be made under section 4 of the said Act, have effect from the 13th day of November, 2023, for a period of five years,” it said.

As per the notification, the eight organisations are the Peoples’ Liberation Army generally known as PLA, and its political wing, the Revolutionary Peoples’ Front (RPF), the United National Liberation Front (UNLF) and its armed wing, the Manipur Peoples’ Army (MPA), the Peoples’ Revolutionary Party of Kangleipak (PREPAK) and its armed wing, the ‘Red Army’, the Kangleipak Communist Party (KCP) and its armed wing, also called the ‘Red Army’, the Kanglei Yaol Kanba Lup (KYKL), the Coordination Committee (CorCom) and the Alliance for Socialist Unity Kangleipak (ASUK).

Further, the notification added that the Central government is of the opinion that the outfits have been engaging in activities prejudicial to the sovereignty and integrity of India; employing and engaging in armed means to achieve their objectives, attacking and killing the security forces, police and civilians in Manipur; indulging in acts of intimidation, extortion and looting of civilian population for collection of funds; making contacts with sources abroad for influencing public opinion and for securing their assistance by way of arms and training for the purpose of achieving their secessionist objective and maintaining camps in neighbouring countries for the purpose of sanctuaries, training and clandestine procurement of arms and ammunition.

It also said that the Central government is of the opinion that the activities of the organisations are detrimental to the sovereignty and integrity of India and that they are unlawful associations. It said if there is no immediate curb and control the activities, they will take the opportunity to “mobilise their cadres for escalating their secessionist, subversive, terrorist and violent activities; propagate anti-national activities in collusion with forces inimical to sovereignty and integrity of India; indulge in killings of civilians and targeting of the police and security force personnel; procure and induct illegal arms and ammunitions from across the international border; and extort and collect huge funds from public for their unlawful activities.”

A 2018 notification declaring the ban against the outfits said the groups were involved in 756 violent incidents from January1, 2013- July 31, 2018 and killed 86 persons including 35 security personnel during the same period. The Monday’s notification omitted reference to the number of violent incidents the organisations were involved in the past five years.

A senior government official said the role of the eight organisations in the ongoing ethnic violence in Manipur has also been found.

Earlier, on September 23, NIA had arrested M Anand Singh, a former cadre of PLA from Imphal.

The agency alleged that Myanmar-based leaders of insurgent groups and proscribed terrorist organisations were recruiting over ground workers (OGW), cadre, and sympathisers to augment their strength for carrying out attacks on security forces and opponent ethnic groups.

At least 175 people have been killed and thousands have been displaced in the ethnic violence between the tribal Kuki-Zo and Meitei people since May 3.

Related:

Manipur: two dead bodies discovered after soldier’s family kidnapped

Manipur HC directs state government to allow internet in areas with no ethnic violence on a trial basis

Manipur: 10 MLAs call out the excessive use of force against the Kuki-Zo community

The post MHA further extends UAPA ban against 8 Meitei extremist organisations  appeared first on SabrangIndia.