UAPA accused gets bail as Kapurthala judge trying case lacks jurisdiction

Saurabh Malik

Chandigarh, July 19

An accused in a case under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), 1967, has been enlarged on bail just because the Kapurthala Additional Sessions Judge lacked jurisdiction to try the matter.

The case has compelled a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court to question the state whether any District Judge in Kapurthala had been assigned the task to try offences under the UAPA and the National Investigation Agency (NIA) Act. The state, through its counsel, has further been asked to inform the Bench as to how many cases were being tried under the two Acts by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kapurthala.

State gets three months to reply

The state counsel will inform us whether any District Judge of Kapurthala has been assigned to try offences under UAPA, 1967, read with NIA Act, 2008. He’ll also inform on how many cases Kapurthala judge is trying under the two Acts on the next date of hearing. — HC Bench

The directions by the Bench of Justice Ritu Bahri and Justice Ashok Kumar Verma came on an appeal filed against the state and other respondents by Gurpreet Singh through counsel Saurav Bhatia. Among other things, he had challenged the order dated March 16 passed by the Kapurthala Additional Sessions Judge, whereby his bail application was dismissed.

Appearing before the Bench, the state counsel did not dispute the fact that the present case was tried under Sections 13 and 18 of the UAPA and the Kapurthala Additional Sessions Judge did not have jurisdiction to try the offences under the Act.

The Bench asserted the Supreme Court after examining the aspect in the case of “Bikramjit Singh versus the State of Punjab” had held that all offences under the UAPA, whether investigated by the NIA or investigating agency of the state government, were to be tried exclusively by the Special Courts.

The Bench asserted the appeal was being allowed since the Kapurthala Additional Sessions Judge did not have the jurisdiction to try the case. The Bench also directed the setting aside of the order dated March 16. The appellant was further ordered to be enlarged on bail to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned.

Before parting with the case, the Bench fixed three-month deadline for the state counsel to furnish the requisite information. “The counsel for the state will inform us whether any District Judge of Kapurthala has been assigned to try offences under the UAPA, 1967, read with the

NIA Act, 2008. He willfurther inform us as to how many cases the KapurthalaAdditional Sessions Judge is trying under the two Acts on the next date of hearing,” the Bench asserted.

The case will now come up for further hearing in October second week.