No provision to grant interim bail to UAPA accused: Punjab and Haryana High Court

The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently refused to grant interim bail to an accused in a case under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), observing neither the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) nor the special statute has a provision for interim bail [Baljit Singh vs State Of Punjab]..The Division Bench of Justices Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Kuldeep Tiwari made the observation while disagreeing with a Coordinate Bench, which had earlier ruled that the accused in UAPA cases should be released on interim bail when sanction to prosecute them remains pending after filing of chargesheet.However, the Bench of Justices Thakur and Tiwari found that this position of law, laid down in Manjeet Singh vs State Of Punjab last year, was in “conflict with the expostulations of law” laid down by the Supreme Court in Judgebir Singh and Ors. vs. National Investigation Agency..In that ruling, the top court had said that an accused at the most may be entitled to regular bail on the ground of delay in trial and not default bail in case there is an inordinate delay in placing the order of sanction before the Special Court.“A plain reading of the above-extracted paragraph (of the Supreme Court ruling) but makes candid speakings, that the inordinate delay in placing the order of sanction before the learned Special Judge, if ultimately leads, to delay becoming caused vis-a-vis, the progression of the trial qua the charge drawn against the accused, or as proposed to be drawn in the report filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C., thereupon, the said causing of delay as arising from the non placing on record of the order of sanction to prosecute the accused, rather may not cause any breach to the mandate of fair and speedy trial, as occurs in Article 21 of the Constitution of India (sic),” the High Court observed..The High Court proceeded to conclude that a UAPA accused cannot be released on interim bail in such cases, but has an option to seek regular bail. There is no express provision for interim bail in the applicable criminal law, the High Court reasoned.“There is no provision either in the Cr.P.C. or in the special statute (supra), wherebys this Court is bestowed with any jurisdiction to grant any interim bail. Contrarily the provisions as occur in the Cr.P.C., which but are applicable to the special statute concerned, do purvey a privilege to the accused to claim regular bail in terms of Section 439 Cr.P.C. Since in the said engrafted provisions of the Cr.P.C., there is no provision for any interim bail being granted to the accused therebys the observation (supra), are per incuriam the statutory provision (supra), as relate to the enlargement on bail of the accused (sic)," the Court's August 23 ruling said..The Court was hearing an appeal moved by an accused against the trial court’s decision to not release the accused on interim bail. The accused was among those arrested in 2022 after certain weapons, including hand grenades and two pistols, were allegedly recovered from them. In March 2022, a charge sheet was filed against them. The police later invoked provisions of UAPA against them and filed a supplementary chargesheet in August 2022. However, the challan was not accompanied by sanction for prosecution under the UAPA..The accused Baljit Singh then moved the trial court for interim bail. However, the same was dismissed in November 2023. He then approached the High Court seeking interim bail, and placeed reliance on the Manjeet Singh verdict while pressing for relief. Though the State said that the competent authority had denied the sanction, it also submitted that two other cases stand registered against the accused.The High Court ultimately found no merit in the appeal and dismissed it..Advocate Mitul Singh Rana represented the appellant.Deputy Advocate General DS Lamba represented the State of Punjab..[Read Judgment]