New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday said that “bail is the rule and jail is an exception” even under the most stringent bail conditions while granting bail to a man accused under Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA).
The bench of Justices A.S. Oka and Augustine George Masih were hearing the bail plea of Jalaluddin Khan, a retired police constable from Bihar, who was accused of renting a portion of his house to alleged members of the the banned Popular Front of India (PFI).
The men were allegedly planning to disrupt Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to Bihar in 2022, the Indian Express reported.
“When a case is made out for a grant of bail, the courts should not have any hesitation in granting bail. The allegations of the prosecution may be very serious. But, the duty of the courts is to consider the case for grant of bail in accordance with the law. ‘Bail is the rule and jail is an exception’ is a settled law. Even in a case like the present case, where there are stringent conditions for the grant of bail in the relevant statutes, the same rule holds good with only modification that the bail can be granted if the conditions in the statute are satisfied,” the apex court said.
More significantly, the court said, “…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.”
Khan was accused of renting out the first floor of the Ahmad Palace building in Patna’s Phulwari Sharif, which was in the name of his wife, to alleged PFI cadre.
Also read: A Timeline of Umar Khalid’s Bail Hearings
The National Investigation Agency (NIA) while opposing his bail plea said that Khan could be seen ‘tampering’ evidence in the CCTV footage from the floor. Khan was seen removing certain items on July 6 and 7, 2022 that were later not found during a police raid on the house on July 11, 2022.
However, the court questioned why the nature of the alleged removed objects was not mentioned in the chargesheet against Khan, adding that, “if he intended to allow the conduct of objectionable activities of PFI by giving first floor premises on rent, he would not have installed CCTV cameras”.
The court also raised doubts on the statement of a protected witness and said “there is nothing in the charge sheet which shows that the appellant has taken part in or has committed unlawful activities as defined in the UAPA. There is no specific material to show that the appellant advocated, abetted, or incited commission of any unlawful activities. A terrorist act is defined in Section 15(1). Assuming that the co-accused were indulging in terrorist acts or were making any act preparatory to the commission of terrorist acts, there is absolutely no material on record to show that there was any conspiracy to commit any terrorist act to which the appellant was a party.”
