NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has rejected a bail plea by an alleged member of banned terrorist outfit 'Sikhs for Justice' run by US based Gurpatwant Singh Pannun, saying bail is the exception and jail the rule in cases registered under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.
A bench of Justices M M Sundresh and Aravind Kumar said the test for rejection of bail is quite plain in cases under the UAP Act.
"Bail must be rejected as a rule, if after hearing the public prosecutor and after perusing the final report or Case Diary, the court arrives at a conclusion that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusations are prima facie true. It is only if the test for rejection of bail is not satisfied that the courts would proceed to decide the bail application in accordance with the tripod test (flight risk, influencing witnesses, tampering with evidence)," the court said.
The court dismissed an appeal filed by Gurwinder Singh, against the Punjab and Haryana High Court's order declining him bail.
Singh was arrested in 2018 after busting of a module for the terrorist organisation by the Punjab police. The NIA filed the charge sheets in the case after taking over the probe from the Punjab police. The court framed charges on December 9, 2021.
Among the grounds, the accused appellant sought bail, saying that he has been in jail for over five years.
The court, however, rejected the plea, saying mere delay in trial pertaining to grave offences cannot be used as a ground for bail.
In the case, the bench noted, the material available on record indicates the involvement of the appellant in furtherance of terrorist activities backed by members of banned terrorist organisation involving exchange of large quantum of money through different channels which needs to be deciphered.
In such a scenario, if the appellant is released on bail there is every likelihood that he will influence the key witnesses of the case which might hamper the process of justice, the bench said.
"We are of the considered view that the material on record prima facie indicates the complicity of the accused as a part of the conspiracy since he was knowingly facilitating the commission of a preparatory act towards the commission of terrorist act under Section 18 of the UAP Act," the bench concluded.
Going through the provisions of the law, the court said the conventional idea in bail jurisprudence vis--vis ordinary penal offences that the discretion of courts must tilt in favour of the oft-quoted phrase - bail is the rule, jail is the exception unless circumstances justify otherwise - does not find any place under the UAP Act.
"It is interesting to note that there is no analogous provision traceable in any other statute to the one found in Section 43D(5) of the UAP Act and in that sense, the language of bail limitation adopted therein remains unique," the bench said in its judgement on February 7, 2024.
The court also said the exercise of the general power to grant bail under the UAP Act is severely restrictive in scope.
"The form of the words used in proviso to Section 43D (5) shall not be released in contrast with the form of the words as found in Section 437(1) CrPC - may be released suggests the intention of the Legislature to make bail, the exception and jail, the rule," the bench added.
