LEGAL ISSUE: Interpretation of bail provisions under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) and the limitations on granting bail in cases involving terrorist activities.
CASE TYPE: Criminal Law, specifically related to terrorism and unlawful activities.
Case Name: Gurwinder Singh vs. State of Punjab & Another
[Judgment Date]: 7 February 2024
Date of the Judgment: 7 February 2024
Citation: 2024 INSC 92
Judges: M.M. Sundresh J. and Aravind Kumar J.
Can an accused person charged under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) be granted bail easily? The Supreme Court recently addressed this critical question in the case of Gurwinder Singh vs. State of Punjab. The court examined the stringent bail provisions under the UAPA and clarified the conditions under which bail can be denied. The bench, comprising Justices M.M. Sundresh and Aravind Kumar, authored the judgment, with Justice Aravind Kumar writing the opinion.
Case Background
The case originates from an incident on 19 October 2018, when two individuals were apprehended for hanging banners with pro-Khalistan slogans in Amritsar. This led to the registration of FIR No. 152, under sections 124A, 153A, 153B, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). During the investigation, several individuals, including Gurwinder Singh, the appellant, were arrested for their alleged involvement in a module of the banned terrorist organization “Sikhs for Justice.”
The investigation revealed that the accused persons received funds through illegal channels to further separatist ideologies and carry out terrorist activities. It was also found that they attempted to procure weapons. The case was later transferred to the National Investigation Agency (NIA) on 4 April 2020, and registered as RC.19/2020/NIA/DLI. The NIA filed supplementary charge sheets, and charges were framed on 9 December 2021.
The primary evidence against Gurwinder Singh includes his alleged involvement in a trip to Srinagar with other accused individuals to purchase a pistol. This was based on the disclosure statements of co-accused Bikramjit Singh and Gurwinder Singh himself.
Timeline:
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 19 October 2018 | Two individuals apprehended for hanging pro-Khalistan banners; FIR No. 152 registered. |
| During Investigation | Several individuals, including Gurwinder Singh, arrested for involvement in the “Sikhs for Justice” module. |
| 16 April 2019 | Final report presented before the Trial Court against eleven accused persons. |
| 4 April 2020 | Investigation transferred to the National Investigation Agency (NIA). |
| 5 April 2020 | NIA registers the case as RC.19/2020/NIA/DLI. |
| 18 December 2020 | NIA files 3rd supplementary chargesheet. |
| 9 December 2021 | Charges framed by the Special Judge, NIA Punjab. |
| 16 December 2021 | Trial court dismisses Gurwinder Singh’s bail application. |
| 24 April 2023 | High Court of Punjab and Haryana upholds the trial court’s order denying bail. |
| 10 April 2023 | NIA files 4th supplementary charge sheet. |
| 7 February 2024 | Supreme Court denies bail to Gurwinder Singh. |
Course of Proceedings
The trial court dismissed Gurwinder Singh’s bail application on 16 December 2021, stating that there were reasonable grounds to believe the accusations against him were true. This order was challenged in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, which also rejected his bail plea on 24 April 2023, citing the seriousness of the offense and the fact that protected witnesses had not been examined. Meanwhile, the NIA filed a 4th supplementary charge sheet on 10 April 2023.
Legal Framework
The case involves charges under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA), along with other charges under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), and the Arms Act, 1959. The key provisions of the UAPA include:
- Section 17 of the UAPA: Deals with punishment for raising funds for terrorist acts. It states, “Whoever, in India or in a foreign country, directly or indirectly, raises or collects funds or provides funds to any person or persons or attempts to provide funds to any person or persons, knowing that such funds are likely to be used by such person or persons to commit a terrorist act, notwithstanding whether such funds were actually used or not for commission of such act, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than five years but which may extend to imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.”
- Section 18 of the UAPA: Deals with punishment for conspiracy, etc. It states, “Whoever conspires or attempts to commit, or advocates, abets, advises or [incites, directly or knowingly facilitates] the commission of, a terrorist act or any act preparatory to the commission of a terrorist act, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than five years but which may extend to imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.”
- Section 19 of the UAPA: Deals with punishment for harbouring, etc. It states, “Whoever voluntarily harbours or conceals, or attempts to harbour or conceal any person knowing that such person is a terrorist shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three years but which may extend to imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine: Provided that this section shall not apply to any case in which the harbour or concealment is by the spouse of the offender.”
- Section 43D(5) of the UAPA: This section modifies the application of general bail provisions and places stringent conditions on granting bail to those accused under Chapters IV and VI of the UAPA. It states, “Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code, no person accused of an offence punishable under Chapters IV and VI of this Act shall, if in custody, be released on bail or on his own bond unless the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity of being heard on the application for such release: Provided that such accused person shall not be released on bail or on his own bond if the Court, on a perusal of the case diary or the report made under section 173 of the Code is of the opinion that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against such person is prima facie true.”
These provisions are crucial in understanding the legal framework within which the court assessed the bail application.
Arguments
Appellant’s Arguments (Gurwinder Singh):
- The appellant argued that the High Court and the Special Judge wrongly relied on the disclosure statement of Bikramjit Singh to implicate him.
- He contended that his mobile phone was not scrutinized, and the absence of incriminating conversations in the Communication Data Records (CDR) supports his case for bail.
- He argued that he has been in custody for five years, which is contrary to the law laid down in KA Najeeb v. Union of India [(2021) 3 SCC 713].
- He pointed out that only 19 out of 106 witnesses have been examined in the last five years.
- He highlighted that his name does not appear in the terror funding chart and questioned the omission of the alleged main conspirator, Nihal Singh, as an accused.
- He emphasized that he did not procure any weapons and that out of nine protected witnesses examined, eight did not mention his name.
Respondent’s Arguments (State of Punjab):
- The respondent argued that sufficient evidence exists to prove the incriminating role of the appellant, as revealed by the statements of protected witnesses.
- The respondent contended that the appellant, along with co-accused Bikramjit Singh, was involved in the activities of “Sikhs for Justice,” a banned terrorist organization.
- The respondent stated that the appellant, along with co-accused, visited Srinagar to procure arms and ammunition.
- The respondent emphasized that the appellant admitted in his disclosure statement that he continued the journey to Srinagar even after knowing its purpose and suggested procuring weapons from Uttar Pradesh.
- The respondent argued that the provisions of Section 43D(5) of the UAPA are applicable in this case, justifying the denial of bail.
- The respondent contended that the case is under trial, 22 witnesses have been examined, and the accused faces grave charges. Releasing the appellant on bail could influence witnesses and hamper justice.
The innovativeness of the argument from the Appellant was in highlighting the lack of direct evidence against him, the delay in trial, and the omission of the main conspirator. The Respondent, on the other hand, focused on the gravity of the charges and the potential for the Appellant to influence the trial.
| Main Submission | Appellant’s Sub-Submissions | Respondent’s Sub-Submissions |
|---|---|---|
| Disclosure Statements | ✓ Disclosure statement of Bikramjit Singh cannot be used to implicate the appellant. | ✓ Disclosure statements of protected witnesses reveal the appellant’s incriminating role. |
| Mobile Phone Scrutiny | ✓ Lack of scrutiny of the appellant’s mobile phone and no incriminating CDR. | ✓ Scrutiny report of Bikramjit Singh’s phone shows communication with the appellant. |
| Custody Period | ✓ Appellant has been in custody for five years, contrary to the law in KA Najeeb. | ✓ Delay in trial cannot be a ground for bail in grave offences. |
| Witness Examination | ✓ Only 19 out of 106 witnesses examined in five years; 8 of 9 protected witnesses did not mention the appellant. | ✓ 22 witnesses, including protected witnesses, have been examined. |
| Terror Funding | ✓ Appellant’s name does not appear in the terror funding chart. | ✓ The case involves a terrorist gang with multiple roles; lack of funds received does not absolve the appellant. |
| Procurement of Weapons | ✓ Appellant did not procure any weapons. | ✓ Appellant was involved in activities to procure arms and ammunition in Srinagar. |
| Main Conspirator | ✓ Omission of the alleged main conspirator, Nihal Singh, as an accused. | |
| Voluntary Statement | ✓ Appellant admitted to continuing the journey to Srinagar and suggesting alternative procurement of weapons. | |
| Application of Section 43D(5) UAPA | ✓ Provisions of Section 43D(5) of UAPA are applicable, justifying denial of bail. |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court considered the following key issue:
- Whether the High Court was correct in denying bail to the appellant based on the evidence and the provisions of Section 43D(5) of the UAPA?
Treatment of the Issue by the Court:
| Issue | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| Whether the High Court was correct in denying bail to the appellant based on the evidence and the provisions of Section 43D(5) of the UAPA? | The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, stating that the material on record prima facie indicates the appellant’s complicity in the conspiracy. The Court emphasized the stringent bail provisions under UAPA and the need to reject bail if there are reasonable grounds to believe the accusations are prima facie true. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:
| Authority | Legal Point | How the Authority was Used |
|---|---|---|
| KA Najeeb v. Union of India [(2021) 3 SCC 713] | Delay in Trial as a ground for bail | Distinguished; the Court held that the circumstances in KA Najeeb were different and the mere delay in trial cannot be a ground for bail in grave offenses. |
| Zahoor Ali Watali [(2019) 5 SCC 1] | Interpretation of Section 43D(5) of UAPA | The Court relied on this case to clarify the meaning of “prima facie true” and the degree of satisfaction required while considering bail applications under the UAPA. |
| Devender Gupta v. National Investigating Agency [2014 (2) ALD Cri. 251] | Guidelines for assessing “prima facie” truth | The Court referred to this case for guidance on circumstances that would indicate if the accusation is “prima facie true.” |
| Kekhriesatuo Tep and Ors. v. National Investigation Agency [(2023) 6 SCC 58] | Interpretation of Section 43D(5) of UAPA | The Court relied on this case to reiterate the distinction between “not guilty” in other acts and “prima facie” in UAPA. |
| Sudesh Kedia v. Union of India [(2021) 4 SCC 704] | Meaning of “prima facie” | The Court relied on this case to define the meaning of “prima facie” as it relates to the materials/evidence collected by the investigating agency. |
| Section 17 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 | Punishment for raising funds for terrorist act | The Court considered this section to assess whether the accusations against the appellant fall under this provision. |
| Section 18 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 | Punishment for conspiracy, etc. | The Court considered this section to assess whether the accusations against the appellant fall under this provision. |
| Section 19 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 | Punishment for harbouring, etc. | The Court considered this section to assess whether the accusations against the appellant fall under this provision. |
| Section 43D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 | Bail provisions under UAPA | The Court analyzed this section to determine the limitations on granting bail and the conditions that need to be satisfied. |
Judgment
| Submission by Parties | How the Court Treated the Submission |
|---|---|
| Appellant’s argument that the disclosure statement of Bikramjit Singh cannot be used to implicate him. | The Court noted that the disclosure statement of Bikramjit Singh, along with the appellant’s own disclosure statement, corroborated the fact that they went to Srinagar for the purchase of a pistol. |
| Appellant’s argument that his mobile phone was not scrutinized and there was no incriminating CDR. | The Court observed that the scrutiny report of Bikramjit Singh’s mobile phone revealed that the appellant was in communication with him multiple times, even prior to their trip to Srinagar. |
| Appellant’s argument that he has been in custody for five years, contrary to the law laid down in KA Najeeb. | The Court distinguished the case of KA Najeeb, stating that the circumstances were different and the mere delay in trial cannot be a ground for bail in grave offenses. |
| Appellant’s argument that only 19 out of 106 witnesses have been examined in the last five years. | The Court noted that the trial is underway and 22 witnesses, including protected witnesses, have been examined. |
| Appellant’s argument that his name does not appear in the terror funding chart. | The Court stated that the case involves a terrorist gang with multiple roles, and the mere fact that the appellant did not receive funds does not absolve him of his role. |
| Appellant’s argument that he did not procure any weapons. | The Court noted that the appellant was involved in activities to procure arms and ammunition in Srinagar. |
| Appellant’s argument that the main conspirator, Nihal Singh, was omitted as an accused. | The Court did not specifically address this point but focused on the appellant’s involvement. |
| Respondent’s argument that the appellant was involved in the activities of “Sikhs for Justice.” | The Court acknowledged the respondent’s argument and noted that the appellant was involved in activities of a banned terrorist organization. |
| Respondent’s argument that the appellant admitted to continuing the journey to Srinagar and suggesting alternative procurement of weapons. | The Court noted that the appellant admitted in his disclosure statement that he suggested procuring weapons from Uttar Pradesh. |
| Respondent’s argument that the provisions of Section 43D(5) of UAPA are applicable. | The Court agreed with the respondent and applied the stringent bail provisions under UAPA. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
- KA Najeeb v. Union of India [(2021) 3 SCC 713]*: The Court distinguished this case, stating that the circumstances were different and the mere delay in trial cannot be a ground for bail in grave offenses.
- Zahoor Ali Watali [(2019) 5 SCC 1]*: The Court relied on this case to clarify the meaning of “prima facie true” and the degree of satisfaction required while considering bail applications under the UAPA.
- Devender Gupta v. National Investigating Agency [2014 (2) ALD Cri. 251]*: The Court referred to this case for guidance on circumstances that would indicate if the accusation is “prima facie true.”
- Kekhriesatuo Tep and Ors. v. National Investigation Agency [(2023) 6 SCC 58]*: The Court relied on this case to reiterate the distinction between “not guilty” in other acts and “prima facie” in UAPA.
- Sudesh Kedia v. Union of India [(2021) 4 SCC 704]*: The Court relied on this case to define the meaning of “prima facie” as it relates to the materials/evidence collected by the investigating agency.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision to deny bail was primarily influenced by the stringent provisions of the UAPA and the prima facie evidence suggesting the appellant’s involvement in terrorist activities. The court emphasized the following points:
- The court noted the seriousness of the charges under the UAPA, which require a different approach to bail compared to ordinary penal offenses.
- The court highlighted the prima facie evidence against the appellant, including his disclosure statement and the CDR analysis, which indicated his involvement in the conspiracy.
- The court emphasized the need to ensure that the appellant does not influence witnesses or hamper the process of justice.
- The court distinguished the case from KA Najeeb, stating that the delay in trial cannot be a ground for bail in cases involving grave offenses under UAPA.
- The court reiterated the guidelines laid down in Watali’s case, emphasizing that the test for rejection of bail is satisfied if there are reasonable grounds to believe that the accusations are prima facie true.
| Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Stringent provisions of UAPA | 30% |
| Prima facie evidence of involvement | 40% |
| Risk of influencing witnesses | 20% |
| Distinction from KA Najeeb | 10% |
Fact:Law Ratio
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 60% |
| Law | 40% |
Logical Reasoning:
Issue: Whether bail can be granted under UAPA?
Step 1: Assess if Section 43D(5) of UAPA applies
Step 2: Check if accusations are prima facie true based on case diary and report under Section 173 CrPC
Step 3: If prima facie true, bail is rejected unless ‘tripod test’ is satisfied
Step 4: In this case, prima facie test is satisfied; bail is rejected
The Court rejected alternative interpretations that favored granting bail, emphasizing the stringent nature of UAPA and the need to prioritize national security.
Key Takeaways
- Bail under the UAPA is an exception, not a rule, due to the stringent conditions imposed by Section 43D(5).
- The courts must reject bail if there are reasonable grounds to believe that the accusations are prima facie true, based on the case diary and the report under Section 173 of the CrPC.
- The degree of satisfaction required to deny bail under UAPA is lower than that required for framing charges or discharging an accused.
- The courts must consider the totality of the material gathered by the investigating agency and not analyze individual pieces of evidence in isolation.
- Delay in the trial is not a sufficient ground to grant bail in cases involving grave offenses under the UAPA.
- The court’s decision underscores the importance of national security concerns in cases involving terrorist activities.
Directions
The Supreme Court did not provide any specific directions in this judgment. The court’s observations were limited to the denial of bail and the interpretation of the UAPA provisions.
Specific Amendments Analysis
There were no specific amendments discussed in the judgment.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that the bail provisions under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA are stringent, and bail must be rejected if there are reasonable grounds to believe that the accusations are prima facie true. This judgment reinforces the existing legal position on bail under UAPA, emphasizing the need for a strict interpretation of the law in cases involving terrorist activities. There is no change in the previous position of law but a reaffirmation of the same.
Conclusion
In the case of Gurwinder Singh vs. State of Punjab, the Supreme Court upheld the denial of bail to the appellant, emphasizing the stringent bail provisions under the UAPA. The court’s decision underscores the importance of national security concerns and the need for a strict interpretation of the law in cases involving terrorist activities. The judgment clarifies the legal standards for granting bail under UAPA, reinforcing the principle that bail is an exception rather than a rule in such cases.
Category:
Parent Category: Criminal Law
- Child Category: Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967
- Child Category: Bail Law
- Child Category: Terrorist Activities
- Child Category: National Investigation Agency (NIA)
Parent Category: Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967
- Child Category: Section 17, Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967
- Child Category: Section 18, Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967
- Child Category: Section 19, Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967
- Child Category: Section 43D, Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967
Parent Category: Indian Penal Code, 1860
- Child Category: Section 124A, Indian Penal Code, 1860
- Child Category: Section 153A, Indian Penal Code, 1860
- Child Category: Section 153B, Indian Penal Code, 1860
- Child Category: Section 120B, Indian Penal Code, 1860
FAQ
Q: What is the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA)?
A: The UAPA is an Indian law aimed at preventing unlawful activities, including terrorism. It gives special powers to the government to deal with individuals and organizations involved in such activities.
Q: What is Section 43D(5) of the UAPA?
A: Section 43D(5) of the UAPA imposes stringent conditions on granting bail to those accused under Chapters IV and VI of the Act. It states that bail can be denied if the court believes that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the accusations are prima facie true.
Q: What does ‘prima facie true’ mean in the context of UAPA?
A: ‘Prima facie true’ means that on the face of it, the materials and evidence collected by the investigating agency must show the complicity of the accused in the commission of the offense. It does not require proof beyond a reasonable doubt at the bail stage.
Q: Can an accused person get bail easily under UAPA?
A: No, bail is not easily granted under UAPA due to the stringent conditions imposed by Section 43D(5). The court must reject bail if there are reasonable grounds to believe that the accusations are prima facie true.
Q: What role does the case diary play in deciding bail under UAPA?
A: The case diary and the report under Section 173 of the CrPC are crucial in deciding bail under UAPA. The court must examine these documents to determine if there are reasonable grounds to believe that the accusations are prima facie true.
Q: What is the ‘tripod test’ in bail jurisprudence, and how does it relate to UAPA?
A: The ‘tripod test’ typically refers to the conditions for granting bail, which include factors like the nature of the offense, the severity of the punishment, and the risk of the accused absconding or tampering with evidence. However, under UAPA, the ‘tripod test’ is modified by the stringent provisions of Section 43D(5), where the focus shifts to whether the accusations are prima facie true, and if so, bail is generally denied.
Q: What are the implications of this judgment for future UAPA cases?
A: This judgment reinforces the stringent bail conditions under UAPA and emphasizes that courts must prioritize national security concerns. It clarifies that delay in trial is not a sufficient ground for bail in UAPA cases and that the courts must carefully assess the prima facie truth of the accusations based on the case diary and the report under Section 173 of the CrPC.
Q: Does this judgment mean that all UAPA accused will be denied bail?
A: No, this judgment does not mean that all UAPA accused will be denied bail. However, it highlights the stringent conditions for granting bail under UAPA and emphasizes that bail is an exception rather than a rule. Each case will be decided on its own merits based on the evidence and the specific circumstances.
Q: What is the role of disclosure statements in UAPA cases?
A: Disclosure statements of the accused or co-accused can be a crucial piece of evidence in UAPA cases. However, courts must carefully analyze these statements and ensure that they are corroborated by other evidence before relying on them to deny bail.
Q: What is the significance of the case KA Najeeb v. Union of India in relation to bail under UAPA?
A: In KA Najeeb v. Union of India, the Supreme Court had granted bail to an accused under UAPA due to the prolonged delay in the trial. However, in the Gurwinder Singh case, the court distinguished the circumstances and held that mere delay in trial cannot be a ground for bail in grave offenses under UAPA.
Q: What is the role of the National Investigation Agency (NIA) in UAPA cases?
A: The National Investigation Agency (NIA) is the premier counter-terrorism law enforcement agency in India. It is responsible for investigating and prosecuting offenses related to terrorism and unlawful activities, including cases registered under UAPA.
Q: What is the difference between bail under UAPA and bail under other criminal laws?
A: The key difference lies in the stringent conditions imposed by Section 43D(5) of the UAPA, which makes it more difficult to obtain bail compared to other criminal laws. Under UAPA, the court must reject bail if there are reasonable grounds to believe that the accusations are prima facie true, whereas, in other criminal laws, the court may consider other factors such as the nature of the offense and the risk of the accused absconding.
Q: What is the significance of the term “prima facie” in the context of UAPA bail?
A: In the context of UAPA bail, “prima facie” means that at the initial stage of considering bail, the court must assess whether there is sufficient material on record to suggest that the accusations against the accused are true on the face of it. This assessment is not the same as a full trial, where the prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.