Watali judgment no bar to deny bail to UAPA accused when trial moving at snail's pace: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Thursday held that its 2019 judgment in the case of NIA vs. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali on bail in cases under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) does not bar courts from granting bail to accused when the criminal trial is moving at a snail's place [Sheikh Javed Iqbal @ Ashfaq Ansari @ Javed Ansari v State of Uttar Pradesh]..In the Watali verdict, the Supreme Court had held that bail in UAPA cases cannot be granted if there is a mere prima facie satisfaction that the material on record proves the allegations..A Bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and Ujjal Bhuyan today said that the Watali case would be a precedent in the right context."Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali has to be read and understood in the context in which it was rendered and not as a precedent to deny bail to an accused-undertrial suffering long incarceration with no end in sight of the criminal trial," the Bench underscored.It is established law that an accused is entitled to a speedy trial, especially when the charges are serious, the Court said."If the alleged offence is a serious one, it is all the more necessary for the prosecution to ensure that the trial is concluded expeditiously. When a trial gets prolonged, it is not open to the prosecution to oppose bail of the accused-undertrial on the ground that the charges are very serious. Bail cannot be denied only on the ground that the charges are very serious though there is no end in sight for the trial to conclude," the Division Bench said..The observations came in a judgment delivered earlier today where the Court observed that restrictive clauses of stringent penal statutes like UAPA do not prohibit grant of bail.Therefore, the Bench granted bail to a man who had been accused of offences under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) on allegations that he was involved in the counterfeiting of Indian currency.The man had remained in jail since his arrest in 2015 arrest by the Anti-Terrorist Squad (ATS) of Uttar Pradesh..“A constitutional court cannot be restrained from granting bail to an accused on account of restrictive statutory provisions in a penal statute if it finds that the right of the accused-undertrial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India has been infringed. In that event, such statutory restrictions would not come in the way ... it would be very wrong to say that under a particular statute, bail cannot be granted. It would run counter to the very grain of our constitutional jurisprudence," the apex court observed..Advocates M S Khan, Tripurari Ray, Balwant Singh Billowria, Anirudh Ray, Qusar Khan, Akshay Singh, Vivekanand Singh and Manu Shanker Mishra appeared for the accused. Senior Additional Advocate General Garima Prasad and advocates Shaurya Sahay and Advocate Shobhit Dwivedi represented the State of Uttar Pradesh. Read more about the verdict, here..[Read Judgment]