Introduction:

In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court delivered a significant judgment on bail applications under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA). The case involved a man charged with promoting the Khalistani terror movement. The bench, comprising Justices MM Sundresh and Aravind Kumar, emphasized the exceptional nature of bail under UAPA, asserting that “jail is the rule and bail an exception.”

Arguments of Both Sides:

The appellant, represented by Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves, contended for bail, challenging the stringent provisions of UAPA. On the opposing side, counsels including ASG SV Raju and DAG Vivek Jain argued in favor of maintaining the restrictive bail conditions, citing the gravity of offenses under UAPA.

Court’s Judgment –

I: Whether the test for rejection of bail is satisfied?

The court elucidated a two-pronged test. Firstly, it analyzed Section 43D(5) of UAPA, emphasizing the legislative intent to make bail an exception. The proviso to this section stipulates that if the court finds reasonable grounds to believe the accusations are prima facie true, bail shall not be granted. The court inferred a low standard for prima facie satisfaction, restricting the general power to grant bail under UAPA severely.

II: Whether the accused satisfied the general triple test for grant of bail?

The second prong involved assessing flight risk, witness influence, and evidence tampering. Factors such as the nature of the offense, potential punishment, age, character, and status of the accused were considered. The court referred to key points from precedents, highlighting the need for prima facie evidence and a broad probability analysis.