The Punjab and Haryana High Court has granted bail to an accused who was jailed for more than 5 years. The case was registered under the UAPA (prevention of illegal activities Act). The court said that the government side could not prove that the accused ever had a terrorist
,
The accused was accused that he had supplied illegal weapons to Dharminder Singh alias Guggani and his associates. These weapons were said to be used for incidents like murder, robbery, robbery and ransom. An FIR was registered under Section 120-B of IPC, Section 25 of Arms Act and Section 10, 13, 18 and 20 of UAPA.
Know what the court said
A bench of Justice Deepak Sibal and Justice Lapita Banerjee said that the people associated with the accused were involved in terrorist activities, even then there is no evidence on the record that the accused himself promoted, encouraged, advised or conspired. Despite keeping in custody for so long, the prosecution could not bring any strong evidence.
The court also said that the state government did not even try in five years that the main accused Dharminder Singh alias Gugni, who is serving a sentence in another case in Tihar Jail, be questioned. Not only this, there is a serious shortage in this case and not being arrested till now.
.30 Bore pistol and 4 live cartridges recovered
The prosecution said that only one .30 bore pistol and 4 live cartridges were found from the accused. Apart from this, no major evidence or documents were found which could connect him with the terrorist incident. The court said that the accused has been added only on the basis of secret information and statements of some witnesses.
High Court Chandigarh.
Court comment on slow hearing
The court said that the accused has been in jail for more than 5 years 6 months, but the trial did not progress further. The charges were framed on 24 April 2024 and out of 40 witnesses, only 1 witness has been testified so far. The state government could not even tell how long the case would be completed.
Justice Banerjee said that the Supreme Court has said many times that only long detention can become the basis of granting bail, because fast hearing is the fundamental right of every accused.
Supreme Court reference
The court said that the Supreme Court has made it clear in the Union of India vs. Najib case that Section 43-D (5) of the UAPA cannot stop the courts from granting bail. If it is violating the fundamental right of the accused.
The High Court said that the prosecution could neither present evidence nor show progress in the trial. In such a situation, keeping the accused in and in jail will be a violation of Article 21 (Right to Life and Freedom). Therefore, the court had no choice but to bail the accused.
