Read Time: 09 minutes

Synopsis

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has recently ruled that there is no statutory provision to grant interim bail to an accused under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). The court delivered the verdict while rejecting an appeal that sought interim bail based on a previous ruling by a Coordinate Bench which had allowed interim bail for accused individuals in UAPA cases if the sanction to prosecute them remained pending after the filing of the chargesheet.

The decision was made by a Division Bench comprising Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Kuldeep Tiwari, who dismissed an appeal seeking interim bail for Baljit Singh, an accused in a UAPA case, emphasising that there is no statutory provision in either the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) or the UAPA that allows for the grant of interim bail to an accused.

The Bench disagreed with an earlier ruling by a Coordinate Bench that had allowed interim bail for UAPA accused if the sanction to prosecute them was pending after the chargesheet was filed. Instead, the High Court relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Judgebir Singh and Ors. vs. National Investigation Agency, wherein the Supreme Court had clarified that delays in obtaining prosecution sanctions could potentially infringe on an accused's right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution. However, such delays only entitled the accused to apply for regular bail, not interim or default bail.

The case originates from a January 6, 2022, incident where a police team intercepted a black vehicle in Mehna after the occupants attempted to flee. The individuals in the car—Gurpreet Singh, Varinder Singh, and Baljit Singh—were arrested, with the police reportedly recovering two live hand grenades from Baljit Singh and a 9mm pistol with cartridges from the others. A chargesheet was filed on March 7, 2022, with additional charges under Section 120-B IPC and UAPA added on May 18, 2022. A supplementary chargesheet submitted on August 29, 2022, lacked the necessary prosecution sanction under UAPA. Baljit Singh's interim bail application was denied by the Additional Sessions Judge, Moga, on November 20, 2023, leading to his appeal in the High Court.

Counsel for the appellant, Advocate Mitul Singh Rana, argued that Baljit Singh had been languishing in jail without trial due to the absence of a prosecution sanction, which prevented the court from taking cognizance of the charges. The appellant cited the precedent set in Manjeet Singh vs. State of Punjab, where the Court held that an accused should be granted interim bail if the sanction for prosecution under UAPA is not provided within a stipulated time.

The respondent (State), represented by Deputy Advocate General DS Lamba, countered that the State had not been able to obtain the necessary sanction from the Home Department, which had returned the file with objections. Additionally, it was argued that Baljit Singh was involved in two other criminal cases, further weakening his claim for interim bail.

The Court rejected the appellant's reliance on the Manjeet Singh case, stating that the earlier ruling conflicted with the Supreme Court's decision in Judgebir Singh and Ors. vs. National Investigation Agency. The court noted : “No breach is caused to the mandate of Article 21 of the Constitution of India nor therebys there can be any bestowment of any leverage in the accused to as such claim any assigning to him of the benefit of the statutory default bail, as envisaged under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C.”

“There is no provision either in the Cr.P.C. or in the special statute [UAPA], whereby 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," the court further stated.

The High Court concluded that neither the CrPC nor the UAPA provides for interim bail in such circumstances. The Court further noted that the provisions of the CrPC applicable to UAPA cases only allow for regular bail under Section 439 CrPC. Therefore, the Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the trial court's decision to deny interim bail to Baljit Singh.

 

Cause Title: BALJIT SINGH v STATE OF PUNJAB [CRA-D-1545-2023]