Supreme Court Grants Bail in UAPA Case Citing Prolonged Incarceration: Jahir Hak vs. State of Rajasthan (2022)

Date of the Judgment: April 11, 2022
Citation: Jahir Hak vs. The State of Rajasthan (2022) INSC 375
Judges: Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.M. Joseph and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Hrishikesh Roy
Can an undertrial prisoner be kept in custody indefinitely, even when the trial is progressing at a snail’s pace? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this crucial question in a case involving the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA). The court granted bail to an accused who had been in custody for nearly eight years, emphasizing the importance of speedy trials and the need to balance the severity of the charges with the length of pre-trial detention. This judgment highlights the judiciary’s concern about prolonged incarceration of undertrial prisoners. The judgment was authored by Justice K.M. Joseph.

Case Background

The appellant, Jahir Hak, was arrested on May 8, 2014, in connection with FIR 113/2014 at Police Station Pratapnagar, Jodhpur. He was charged with offenses under Sections 10, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 18A, 18B, 19, 20, 23, and 38 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. The prosecution alleged that Jahir Hak was in contact with a co-accused who was purportedly the head of a sleeper cell module of Indian Mujahideen. A chargesheet was filed against him on September 17, 2014, and charges were framed on January 29, 2018. Despite the passage of several years, the trial was progressing slowly, with only a few witnesses examined.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The appellant had approached the High Court of Judicature at Rajasthan seeking bail, which was rejected. Subsequently, the appellant appealed to the Supreme Court of India. The Supreme Court, taking note of the prolonged incarceration of the appellant and the slow pace of the trial, initially sought reports from the trial court regarding the expected time for the trial’s completion. The trial court indicated that it would take at least 2 to 3 years to conclude the trial. The Supreme Court also directed the State to file an affidavit regarding witness protection measures and the status of other accused persons. After considering the reports and affidavits, the Supreme Court directed the examination of three witnesses who had expressed concerns about threats to their lives. After examining the depositions of these witnesses, the Supreme Court finally granted bail to the appellant.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the interpretation of Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which deals with the power of the High Court or Court of Session to grant bail, and Section 43D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. Section 43D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 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 Court, after hearing the Public Prosecutor, is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against such person is prima facie true.”

The Supreme Court also considered the provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, particularly Section 37, which imposes stringent conditions for granting bail. The court noted that the conditions for bail under Section 43D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 are less stringent than those under Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

Arguments

Arguments by the Appellant:

• The appellant’s counsel argued that the appellant had been in custody for almost eight years, which is an unreasonably long period for an undertrial prisoner.
• It was pointed out that the trial was progressing at a very slow pace, with only a few witnesses examined despite the long period of incarceration.
• The appellant’s counsel contended that the evidence presented by the prosecution did not implicate the appellant.
• It was also argued that one of the co-accused, Aadil Ansari, had been granted bail by the Supreme Court, indicating that the appellant should also be considered for bail.
• The counsel relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. K. A. Najeeb (2021) 3 SCC 713, which emphasized the importance of speedy trials and the right to bail, even in cases involving special legislations like the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.

Arguments by the Respondent (State):

• The State argued that the appellant was accused of serious offenses under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, and therefore, should not be granted bail.
• The State contended that the trial was progressing and that they were taking effective steps to ensure its early disposal.
• The State also highlighted that some witnesses had expressed concerns about threats to their lives, implying that the appellant could potentially influence witnesses if released on bail.
• The State also argued that the role attributed to the co-accused who was granted bail was different from that of the appellant.

Innovativeness of the Argument: The appellant’s argument was innovative in the sense that it emphasized the prolonged incarceration and the slow pace of the trial, arguing that these factors should outweigh the gravity of the charges. The reliance on the Union of India v. K. A. Najeeb (2021) 3 SCC 713, judgment was also a key aspect of the appellant’s submission.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame specific issues in a separate section. However, the core issue addressed by the court was:

1. Whether the appellant, who has been in custody for nearly eight years as an undertrial prisoner, should be granted bail, considering the slow pace of the trial and the nature of the charges against him.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Cases:

• Union of India v. K. A. Najeeb (2021) 3 SCC 713, Supreme Court of India: This case was relied upon by the appellant to argue that even in cases involving special legislations, the right to a speedy trial and the right to bail should be considered, especially when there has been prolonged incarceration. The Supreme Court in this case had emphasized that the constitutionality of harsh conditions for bail in special enactments is justified on the touchstone of speedy trials to ensure the protection of innocent civilians.
• Paramjit Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi) (1999) 9 SCC 252, Supreme Court of India: This case was referred to in the Union of India v. K. A. Najeeb (2021) 3 SCC 713 judgment, and it was noted that the Supreme Court had enlarged the accused on bail in cases under special legislations when they had been in jail for an extended period of time with little possibility of early completion of the trial.
• Babba v. State of Maharashtra (2005) 11 SCC 569, Supreme Court of India: This case was also referred to in the Union of India v. K. A. Najeeb (2021) 3 SCC 713 judgment, where the Supreme Court had granted bail considering the long period of incarceration.
• Umarmia v. State of Gujarat (2017) 2 SCC 731, Supreme Court of India: This case was also referred to in the Union of India v. K. A. Najeeb (2021) 3 SCC 713 judgment, where the Supreme Court had granted bail considering the long period of incarceration.

Legal Provisions:

• Section 439, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: This section deals with the power of the High Court or Court of Session to grant bail.
• Section 43D(5), Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967: This provision specifies the conditions for granting bail in cases under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.
• Section 37, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985: This section imposes stringent conditions for granting bail in cases under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Union of India v. K. A. Najeeb (2021) 3 SCC 713:* The Supreme Court followed this judgment, emphasizing the importance of speedy trials and the right to bail, even in cases involving special legislations. The court noted that the constitutionality of harsh bail conditions in special enactments is justified by the need for speedy trials to protect innocent civilians.
• Paramjit Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi) (1999) 9 SCC 252:* This case was referred to in the Union of India v. K. A. Najeeb (2021) 3 SCC 713 judgment and was noted to support the view that bail can be granted when there is prolonged incarceration.
• Babba v. State of Maharashtra (2005) 11 SCC 569:* This case was also referred to in the Union of India v. K. A. Najeeb (2021) 3 SCC 713 judgment to support the view that bail can be granted when there is prolonged incarceration.
• Umarmia v. State of Gujarat (2017) 2 SCC 731:* This case was also referred to in the Union of India v. K. A. Najeeb (2021) 3 SCC 713 judgment to support the view that bail can be granted when there is prolonged incarceration.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision to grant bail was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• Prolonged Incarceration: The appellant had been in custody for almost eight years as an undertrial prisoner. This was a significant factor that weighed heavily in the court’s decision.
• Slow Pace of Trial: The trial was progressing at a very slow pace, with only a few witnesses examined despite the long period of incarceration. This indicated that the appellant could potentially remain in custody for several more years before the trial concludes.
• Nature of Evidence: The evidence presented so far did not directly implicate the appellant, which raised questions about the justification for his continued detention.
• Less Stringent Bail Conditions: The court noted that the conditions for bail under Section 43D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 are less stringent than those under Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. This distinction was important in the court’s decision to grant bail.
• Precedent: The court relied on the judgment in Union of India v. K. A. Najeeb (2021) 3 SCC 713, which emphasized the importance of speedy trials and the right to bail, even in cases involving special legislations.

The court’s reasoning can be summarized as follows:

The Supreme Court considered the arguments for and against granting bail. While acknowledging the seriousness of the charges, the court emphasized that the prolonged incarceration of the appellant and the slow pace of the trial were significant factors that could not be ignored. The court also noted that the evidence presented so far did not directly implicate the appellant. The court balanced these factors with the need to ensure that the accused does not abscond or tamper with evidence. The court chose to grant bail, subject to conditions to be fixed by the trial court, rather than continue the appellant’s detention indefinitely.

The Court stated:

“We would think that in the nature of the case against the appellant, the evidence which has already unfolded and above all, the long period of incarceration that the appellant has already undergone, time has arrived when the appellant be enlarged on bail.”

The Supreme Court did not provide any dissenting opinions. The decision was unanimous.

Key Takeaways

• Prolonged incarceration of undertrial prisoners can be a valid ground for granting bail, even in cases involving special legislations like the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.
• The right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right, and courts must take into account the pace of the trial when considering bail applications.
• The conditions for bail under Section 43D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 are less stringent than those under Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
• Courts must balance the seriousness of the charges with the length of pre-trial detention when deciding on bail applications.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the appellant be released on bail subject to such conditions as shall be fixed by the trial Court.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that prolonged incarceration of an undertrial prisoner, coupled with a slow pace of trial, can be a valid ground for granting bail, even in cases involving special legislations like the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. This judgment reinforces the principle that the right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right, and courts must consider the length of pre-trial detention when deciding on bail applications. The Supreme Court, through this judgment, has reiterated its previous position as laid down in Union of India v. K. A. Najeeb (2021) 3 SCC 713, that the constitutionality of harsh bail conditions in special enactments is justified by the need for speedy trials to protect innocent civilians.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision to grant bail to Jahir Hak underscores the importance of balancing the severity of charges with the fundamental right to a speedy trial. The court’s emphasis on the prolonged incarceration and the slow pace of the trial highlights the need for the judicial system to ensure that undertrial prisoners are not detained indefinitely. This judgment serves as a reminder of the judiciary’s commitment to upholding individual liberties while also acknowledging the need to address serious offenses.