NEW DELHI: In a landmark ruling on Tuesday, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the principle that “bail is the rule, jail is the exception,” not only in cases under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) but also under special statutes such as the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). This decision came while granting bail to a former Bihar Police constable charged under the stringent UAPA for his alleged association with the banned Islamist group, Popular Front of India (PFI).
A bench consisting of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Augustine George Masih stressed that courts must adhere to the principle of granting bail when the statutory conditions are satisfied, even in cases involving serious charges under special laws. The ruling marks a significant shift from a previous judgment in February 2024, where the court had held that the principle of “bail is the rule” did not apply under UAPA.
Details of the Case
The accused, a former police constable, had been in custody for over two years without the commencement of a trial. He faced allegations of being associated with PFI, which the prosecution claimed was involved in illegal activities, including a plan to target BJP’s Nupur Sharma. The prosecution also alleged that the accused had rented out a floor of his house to PFI members. However, the court found the evidence insufficient to substantiate these claims.
In its ruling, the Supreme Court criticized the Patna High Court and the trial court for their rejection of the bail plea, highlighting that their focus was primarily on the activities of PFI rather than an objective analysis of the evidence. The bench concluded that there were no reasonable grounds in the chargesheet to believe that the accused had committed unlawful activities under UAPA.
Supreme Court’s Analysis
The court’s decision was grounded in the principle that bail should be granted if the statutory conditions for its grant are fulfilled. The bench emphasized that even under laws with stringent bail conditions, such as UAPA, the core principle remains that bail is the rule, and refusal should only occur if there are compelling reasons not to grant it. This approach ensures that the rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution are upheld.
The court noted that the chargesheet lacked specific evidence linking the accused to terrorist activities or any terrorist organization listed under Section 2(m) of UAPA. The court found that the evidence did not support the claim that PFI, the group the accused was allegedly associated with, was a terrorist organization according to the schedule under UAPA.
Contrast with Previous Rulings
This ruling contrasts with the court’s earlier stance on February 9, 2024, where it had ruled that the principle of “bail is the rule” did not apply under UAPA, noting that the law’s restrictive nature made bail an exception rather than the rule. This earlier decision emphasized that the provisions of UAPA, which include stringent bail conditions, were designed to make jail the default in cases involving national security and terrorism.
Implications and Reactions
The Supreme Court’s ruling on Tuesday is seen as a crucial development in the legal landscape, particularly concerning the application of UAPA. It reaffirms that despite the severity of charges under special laws, the fundamental principle of granting bail when conditions are met remains applicable. This ruling could influence future cases and ensure a more balanced application of bail provisions under special statutes.
Legal experts and human rights advocates have welcomed the decision, viewing it as a reinforcement of fundamental rights and a check against the potential misuse of stringent laws. The ruling emphasizes that while special laws like UAPA address severe offenses, they must still adhere to established legal principles that protect individual rights.
In summary, the Supreme Court’s decision underscores the enduring principle that bail should generally be granted unless there are substantial reasons to deny it, even under stringent laws like UAPA. This ruling may pave the way for a more nuanced application of bail provisions in cases involving special statutes.