LI Network
Published on: February 8, 2024 at 14:00 IST
In a recent development, the Supreme Court has denied bail to an individual charged under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) for allegedly promoting the Khalistani terror movement.
The Court emphasized that a mere delay in the trial process is not sufficient grounds for granting bail in cases involving serious offenses.
The bench, comprising Justices MM Sundresh and Aravind Kumar, stated that the evidence on record prima facie indicates the accused’s involvement in a conspiracy, as he knowingly facilitated preparatory acts for a terrorist act under section 18 of the UAPA.
The Court underscored that a delay in trial, especially in cases of grave offenses, cannot be used as a basis for bail.
The accused had relied on a previous decision in Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb, where the court held that the right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right and a violation thereof could be grounds for bail in UAPA cases.
However, the Supreme Court differentiated the current case, pointing out that Najeeb’s trial had been separated from other accused parties, and their trial had concluded with imprisonment sentences awarded.
The Court took into account the ongoing trial of the appellant, with 22 witnesses, including protected witnesses, already examined. It expressed concern about the material on record indicating the appellant’s involvement in supporting terrorist activities, including the exchange of large sums of money through various channels.
The Court highlighted the potential influence on key witnesses if the appellant were released on bail.
The appellant had argued that his name was not mentioned in the terror funding chart, and no incriminating evidence was recovered from his mobile phone.
However, the court rejected this argument, stating that it did not absolve the appellant of his role in the alleged crime.
The case background involves the appellant’s association with the banned terrorist organization “Sikhs for Justice,” which was discovered during an investigation into banners promoting the Khalistan movement.
The appellant was accused of illegally receiving funds from the organization and channeling them for separatist activities, including attempting to procure weapons.
Despite the appellant’s appeal for bail on various grounds, the Supreme Court upheld the denial of bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the charges and the ongoing trial proceedings.
Case Title: Gurwinder Singh v. State of Punjab & Another, CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.704 of 2024