A day after the car blast at Delhi's Red Fort that claimed nine lives, the Supreme Court on Tuesday denied bail to a person accused of offences under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) in an unrelated case.
During the hearing, Senior Advocate Siddhartha Dave, appearing for the accused, admitted, "Not the best morning to argue this case after the events of yesterday."However, a Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta observed, "Best morning to send a message."When the Court pointed out that inflammatory material was recovered from the accused, Dave said that only Islamic literature was recovered. Justice Mehta then said that the accused had formed a WhatsApp group on which a flag almost identical to that ISIS was seen.
Dave then explained that the accused has been in jail for over two years but the Court noted that the accusations against him were serious. Dave insisted, stating no RDX or explosive material was recovered and the accused was 70 percent disabled. However, the Court declined to grant bail. Nevertheless, it ordered that the trial should be concluded within 2 years and if that does not happen, the accused can reapply for bail if the delay in trial is not attributable to him.
Pertinently, in the aftermath of the Bombay terror attacks, the Union government enacted the UAPA Amendment Act, 2008. The Amendment introduced Section 43D (5), which required a Court to deny bail if there were reasonable grounds to believe that the case against the accused was prima facie true. The provision made bail difficult to secure, since it required the Court to assess guilt only by looking at the charge sheet prepared by the National Investigation Agency (NIA). The accused cannot provide any evidence outside the chargesheet in their defense.
Section 43D(5) states that if the Court, after perusing the case diary and the chargesheet, finds reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation is prima facie true, then the accused cannot be released on bail.
Follow us
