On Friday (June 11, 2021) the Supreme Court took issue with the High Court of Rajasthan's grant of parole to a UAPA convict, when the SLP was still pending before the Apex Court. The observation was made by a Division Bench of Justices Indira Banerjee and MR Shah while hearing an application filed by UAPA Convict Arun Kumar Jain, who is currently lodged in Central Jail, Jodhpur, seeking three-month bail on the grounds of his father's health.
The current application was filed in a special leave petition before the Supreme Court, which was filed in response to the Rajasthan High Court's final impugned judgement dated October 30, 2018. According to Justice Shah, "How has the High Court released you on parole while this SLP is pending before this Court? This is something to which we strongly object. You should've come here sooner."
While rejecting the Applicant's bail request, the Bench also chastised him for going to the High Court for parole while a Special Leave Petition was pending in the Supreme Court.
Justice Shah explained, "You couldn't have gone to the High Court for parole while your SLP was still pending here, and this Court had already released you on interim bail. We had previously released him for a period of time before he surrendered. He went to the High Court and got the parole despite the fact that we would not have extended the time? The High Court made a mistake."
During the hearing, Adv Aarif Ali Khan, who represented the applicant, urged the Court to grant bail on humanitarian grounds because the applicant's father is seriously ill and his only son. He went on to say that the Supreme Court had previously granted bail for a month on the same grounds.
"Then you should have come here instead of going to the High Court for Parole," the Bench said. The Bench described the Applicant's conduct as "not bona fide," noting that the applicant's application for an extension of surrendering was denied by the Supreme Court on December 18, 2021, prompting him to go to the High Court.
According to Justice Shah, "You could not have gone to the High Court, and you should not have gone to the High Court." The applicant's lawyer claimed that the Supreme Court had stated that the applicant could go to the High Court.
However, Justice Shah expressed his displeasure with the statement, saying, "This court did not say that you should take your case to the High Court. You've made an error in your statement."
The Counsel stated, "My behaviour has been excellent. My Lord, my father has passed away." Justice Banerjee stated the following, "You first stated that he was ill, and now you state that he has died. You're the one who takes a stand first." Adv Khan said, "I retract my statement because it was incorrect." Justice Shah stated, "That is why you are not entitled to any relief because you are incorrect yourself."
The State of Rajasthan's counsel objected to the bail, claiming that the applicant had been convicted twice by concurrent courts and that the allegations against him were serious. He went on to say that even when the case was brought before the Supreme Court for resolution, the applicant's side circulated a letter requesting an adjournment.
It should be noted that the Supreme Court granted interim bail to the current applicant last year due to his father's illness, who is 85 years old and permanently blind. The applicant was found guilty and sentenced to simple life imprisonment by the Sessions Court in Jaipur in 2017 under Sections 13, 18, 18-B, and 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. His conviction was overturned by the High Court, and his sentence was reduced from life to 14 years of rigorous imprisonment with a fine.
On February 11, 2021, the Rajasthan High Court granted him his first regular parole for a period of 20 days, which was later extended twice due to the petitioner's father's health.
Section 13 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act of 1967
Punishment of Unlawful Activities -
- Anyone who participates in, or commits, or advocates, abets, advises, or incites the commission of, any unlawful activity shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of up to seven years, as well as a fine.
- Anyone who assists any unlawful activity of any association declared unlawful under section 3 in any way after the notification under which it was declared unlawful has become effective under sub-section (3) of that section is punishable by imprisonment for a term up to five years, a fine, or both.
- This section does not apply to any treaty, agreement, or convention concluded between the Government of India and the Government of any other country, or to any negotiations conducted in this regard by any person authorised by the Government of India.
Section 18 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act of 1967
Punishment for conspiracy - Anyone who conspires or attempts to commit, or advocates, abets, advises, or incites or knowingly facilitates the commission of, a terrorist act or any act preparatory to the commission of a terrorist act, shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of not less than five years but not more than life, and fined.
Section 18-B of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act of 1967
Punishment for recruiting any person or persons for a terrorist act - Whoever recruits or causes to be recruited any person or persons for the commission of a terrorist act shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of not less than five years, but not less than life imprisonment, as well as a fine.
Section 20 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act of 1967
Punishment for being a member of a terrorist gang or organisation - Any person who is a member of a terrorist gang or a terrorist organisation that is involved in a terrorist act is subject to imprisonment for a term that may extend to life imprisonment, as well as a fine.
