Supreme Court Grants Bail to PFI Member in UAPA Case Citing Delayed Trial: Athar Parwez vs. Union of India (2024) INSC 995 (17 December 2024)

Date of the Judgment: 17 December 2024

Citation: (2024) INSC 995

Judges: Abhay S. Oka, J., Augustine George Masih, J.

Can a person accused under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) be granted bail if the trial is significantly delayed? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in the case of *Athar Parwez vs. Union of India*. The court considered whether the prolonged incarceration of an accused, coupled with a delayed trial, could override the stringent bail provisions under the UAPA. The judgment, delivered by a bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Augustine George Masih, ultimately granted bail to the appellant, emphasizing the importance of speedy trials as a fundamental right.

Case Background

The appellant, Athar Parwez, was arrested on 12 July 2022, and is accused of being an active member of the Popular Front of India (PFI). The allegations against him include planning to cause disturbance during the Prime Minister’s visit to Patna. A raid was conducted on 11 July 2022, at a rented premises in Phulwari Sharif, Patna, where incriminating documents, including one titled “India 2047 towards rule of Islam in India,” were allegedly recovered. The prosecution asserts that these documents indicate an intention to disrupt India’s sovereignty and create disaffection against the country. The National Investigating Agency (NIA) took over the investigation on 22 July 2022, and filed a chargesheet against the appellant on 7 January 2023, under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and the UAPA, 1967. However, charges have not yet been framed.

Timeline:

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The appellant’s counsel argued that the seizure of documents from the rented premises was suspicious, as the recovery was allegedly made from the second floor, while the appellant had rented only the first floor.
• It was contended that no offense under the UAPA, 1967, or even a predicate offense, was made out. The recovered document, “India 2047,” did not explicitly mention any terrorist activities or overt acts that would incite disharmony or religious hatred.
• The counsel highlighted that PFI was a legally constituted organization on the date of the raid and the appellant’s arrest and has not been declared a terrorist organization.
• The chargesheet did not indicate any active role of the appellant, except for participation in demonstrations and protests.
• The appellant’s counsel pointed out that a co-accused, Jalaluddin Khan, with a similar role, had already been granted bail by the Supreme Court.
• It was argued that the testimony of protected witnesses did not implicate the appellant in the alleged crimes.
• The appellant’s counsel also highlighted that the commercial establishments on the ground floor of the building where the raid was conducted would not have permitted any objectionable activities to be carried out.
• The appellant has been in custody for over two years and four months, and the trial is not likely to conclude soon, which violates Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The respondent argued that incriminating documents and electronic items recovered during the raid established the appellant’s active membership in PFI and his involvement in organizing protests.
• The respondent contended that meetings were conducted in the appellant’s rented premises to further the establishment of Islamic rule in India.
• It was alleged that the appellant was working to create a secret group of ex-SIMI members to take revenge against those who made derogatory statements against Islam.
• The respondent stated that the appellant participated in protests where communal slogans were raised, intending to create religious disharmony.
• CDR records showed the appellant was in contact with other co-accused, conspiring to expand PFI’s unlawful ideology.
• The respondent relied on CCTV footage showing the appellant’s presence in meetings held on 6th and 7th July 2022, which established his involvement in the conspiracy.
• The respondent emphasized the statements of protected witnesses, particularly Z, Y, and X, and witness Murtuj Ali, to support the allegations.
• The respondent also referred to the chargesheet paragraphs detailing the protest march, electronic evidence, training conducted in the rented premises, the document ‘India 2047’, and the call data records of the accused.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court:

1. Whether the statutory bar on grant of bail under Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA, 1967, is an absolute impediment, even if the court is satisfied that the accusations are prima facie not true?
2. Whether long incarceration and the unlikelihood of the trial being completed in the near future can be a ground for granting bail under Article 21 of the Constitution of India?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court:

Authorities:

Cases Relied Upon:

• National Investigation Agency v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali, (2019) 5 SCC 1: The Supreme Court held that the statutory bar on bail under UAPA is not absolute if accusations are prima facie untrue. The court must examine the FIR, case diary, and chargesheet on broad probabilities.
• Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb, (2021) 3 SCC 713: The Supreme Court emphasized that long delays in trials can justify granting bail to undertrials, as the right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution.
• Thwaha Fasal v. Union of India, (2022) 14 SCC 766: The Supreme Court reiterated the primacy of fundamental rights over statutory provisions in cases of delayed trials.
• Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra and Anr., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1693: The Supreme Court again emphasized that the seriousness of the crime is not a material factor when there is a delayed trial.
• Jalaluddin Khan v. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1945: The Supreme Court granted bail to the co-accused of the appellant, whose role was similar to that of the appellant, highlighting that the courts should not hesitate to grant bail when a case is made out.

Legal Provisions Considered:

• Section 43-D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967: This section imposes restrictions on granting bail to persons accused of offenses under UAPA.
• Article 21 of the Constitution of India: Guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, including the right to a speedy trial.

Judgment:

How each authority was viewed by the Court:

• National Investigation Agency v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali, (2019) 5 SCC 1*: The Supreme Court relied on this case to reiterate that the statutory bar on bail under UAPA is not absolute and that bail can be granted if the accusations are prima facie untrue.
• Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb, (2021) 3 SCC 713*: The Supreme Court followed this precedent to emphasize the importance of the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution and to justify granting bail in cases of prolonged incarceration.
• Thwaha Fasal v. Union of India, (2022) 14 SCC 766*: The Supreme Court reiterated the principle that fundamental rights, particularly the right to a speedy trial, take precedence over statutory provisions in cases of delayed trials.
• Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra and Anr., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1693*: The Supreme Court reaffirmed that the seriousness of the crime is not a material factor when there is a delayed trial.
• Jalaluddin Khan v. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1945*: The Supreme Court followed its own precedent and granted bail to the co-accused of the appellant, whose role was similar to that of the appellant.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision to grant bail to Athar Parwez was influenced by several factors. The Court emphasized the importance of the right to a speedy trial as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution. The prolonged incarceration of the appellant, coupled with the unlikelihood of the trial concluding soon, weighed heavily in the Court’s decision. Additionally, the Court noted that the chargesheet did not present a strong prima facie case against the appellant, particularly with regard to the UAPA offenses. The Court also highlighted the discrepancies in the prosecution’s case, such as the alleged recovery of incriminating documents from a floor not rented by the appellant and the distortion of witness statements in the chargesheet. The fact that a co-accused with a similar role had already been granted bail by the Supreme Court also played a significant role in the decision.

The Supreme Court’s reasoning was based on a careful consideration of both the factual aspects of the case and the legal principles involved. The Court noted the discrepancies in the prosecution’s case, such as the alleged recovery of incriminating documents from the second floor of the building, which was not rented by the appellant. The Court also emphasized that the chargesheet did not present a strong prima facie case against the appellant, especially with regard to the UAPA offenses. The Court found that the statements of the protected witnesses were distorted in the chargesheet and did not specifically implicate the appellant in the alleged offenses. The Court also highlighted the fact that the co-accused with a similar role had already been granted bail by the Supreme Court, which was a significant factor in its decision.

The Court also considered the constitutional right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court noted that the appellant had been in custody for over two years and four months and that the trial was not likely to conclude soon. The Court held that prolonged incarceration without a trial would violate the appellant’s fundamental rights and that the constitutional right to a speedy trial takes precedence over the statutory restrictions on bail under the UAPA.

The Supreme Court’s decision was unanimous, with both Justices Abhay S. Oka and Augustine George Masih concurring in the judgment. The Court found that the appellant had satisfied the criteria for the grant of bail under Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA, 1967, and that the prolonged incarceration and the unlikelihood of a speedy trial justified the grant of bail.

The Supreme Court’s decision has potential implications for future cases involving UAPA and delayed trials. The judgment emphasizes the importance of the right to a speedy trial and clarifies that statutory restrictions on bail are not absolute. The Court’s reasoning suggests that in cases where there is a significant delay in the trial and the accusations are not prima facie true, bail can be granted even under stringent laws like UAPA.

“The Court further concluded that if on perusal of the case diary and chargesheet, an opinion is formed that there are no reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation s against such person are prima facie true, the accused can be released on bail.”

“Long incarceration and unlikely likelihood of trial being completed in near future has also been taken as a ground for exercising its constitutional role by the Constitutional Court s to grant bail on violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India which guarantees trial to be concluded within a reasonable time.”

“The rule also means that once a case is made out for the grant of bail, the Court cannot decline to grant bail. If the Courts start denying bail in deserving cases, it will be a violation of the rights guaranteed under Article 21 of our Constitution.”

Key Takeaways:

• Right to Speedy Trial: The Supreme Court has reinforced the fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.
• Bail under UAPA: The statutory restrictions on bail under UAPA are not absolute and can be overridden if the accusations are not prima facie true and there is a significant delay in the trial.
• Importance of Prima Facie Case: The prosecution must present a strong prima facie case to justify the denial of bail, especially in cases involving stringent laws like UAPA.
• Scrutiny of Evidence: Courts must carefully scrutinize the evidence presented by the prosecution, including witness statements and recovered documents.
• Balancing Statutory Provisions and Constitutional Rights: The judgment highlights the need to balance statutory provisions with the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

Directions:

The Supreme Court directed that:

• The impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside.
• The appellant, Athar Parwez, is to be released on bail.
• The terms and conditions of the bail are to be fixed by the Special Court.
• The appellant is to be produced before the Special Court within a maximum period of 7 days from the date of the judgment.
• The Special Court shall enlarge the appellant on bail until the conclusion of the trial.

Development of Law:

Ratio Decidendi: The ratio decidendi of this case is that the statutory restrictions on bail under Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA, 1967, are not absolute. The court can grant bail if, on appreciation of the totality of evidence, it is satisfied that the accusations are prima facie not true. Additionally, long incarceration and the unlikelihood of the trial being completed in the near future can be a ground for granting bail under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees the right to a speedy trial.

Change in Previous Positions of Law: This judgment reinforces the position that the right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right that can override statutory restrictions on bail, especially in cases where the accusations are not prima facie true. It emphasizes that the courts must not only consider the seriousness of the charges but also the length of incarceration and the likelihood of a speedy trial.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court’s decision in *Athar Parwez vs. Union of India* underscores the importance of balancing national security concerns with the fundamental rights of individuals. The Court’s emphasis on the right to a speedy trial and the need for a strong prima facie case before denying bail, even under stringent laws like UAPA, sets a significant precedent. The judgment clarifies that prolonged incarceration without a trial is a violation of Article 21 of the Constitution, and that courts must not hesitate to grant bail in deserving cases. This ruling serves as a reminder of the judiciary’s role in protecting individual liberties while upholding the rule of law.