Bail under UAPA

THE Supreme Court has been repeatedly asserting that ‘bail is the rule and jail is the exception’. However, law enforcement and investigation agencies, in their occasional overzealousness, have apparently been under the impression that this legal principle is somehow not applicable to special statutes like the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA), 1967. Clearing the air conclusively, the court has granted bail to a man who was booked under UAPA on the charge of being an active member of a banned organisation. The SC Bench has rightly stated that even if the allegations against the accused are serious, courts have the duty to grant bail when the conditions laid down under the law for the purpose are satisfied. There should be no quarrel with this argument.

Considered draconian particularly by human rights activists, UAPA has often been associated with highhandedness and repression. It was in August 2019 that the Central Government amended the Act to include the provision of designating an individual as a terrorist. Prior to that, only organisations could be given the ‘terrorist’ tag. This important change has led to many individuals being booked for allegedly aiding and abetting terrorism. What’s glaring is the poor conviction rate under UAPA — barely 3 per cent. In nearly every case, the accused are acquitted as the prosecution fails to prove their guilt. The acquittal, however, comes only after the persons have spent three or four years behind bars. At times, the trial begins several years after the arrest.

All these distressing factors make bail under UAPA highly significant. In the instant case, the court punched holes in the chargesheet, saying that there were no reasonable grounds to conclude that the charge of commission of offences punishable under the Act was prima facie true. The grant of bail is virtually a warning to the agencies that they should not misuse the dreaded UAPA. Hopefully, invoking the contentious Act at the drop of a hat will no longer be the norm.