In a significant ruling that balances the fundamental rights of individuals against the stringent provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the appeal for interim bail filed by Baljit Singh. The court, comprising Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Kuldeep Tiwari, held that delays in obtaining prosecution sanctions do not automatically entitle an accused to bail under the UAPA, emphasizing the necessity to uphold statutory mandates even while safeguarding individual liberties.
Background of the Case:
The case originated from an incident on January 6, 2022, when a police team led by Sub-Inspector Gurtej Singh intercepted a vehicle near the Canal Bridge Link Road Mehna in Punjab. The vehicle, which did not stop despite being signaled, was found to be carrying three individuals, including the appellant Baljit Singh. Upon inspection, the police discovered firearms, live hand grenades, and ammunition. The accused, identified as Baljit Singh, Gurpreet Singh Gopi, and Varinder Singh @ Vinda, were arrested, and an FIR was registered.
Following the investigation, a supplementary challan was presented on August 29, 2022, which did not include the requisite sanction from the competent authority under Section 45 of the UAPA. Baljit Singh subsequently filed for interim bail, which was denied by the Additional Sessions Judge, Moga, on November 20, 2023, prompting the current appeal to the High Court.
Legal Issues Involved:
1. Delay in Granting Sanction for Prosecution:
The appellant argued that the delay in obtaining the required sanction from the competent authority under the UAPA was unjust and infringed upon his right to a speedy trial as guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The defense emphasized that the sanction is necessary for the court to take cognizance of the offence, and the absence of such a sanction for a prolonged period was a violation of procedural fairness.
2. Entitlement to Interim Bail in the Absence of Sanction:
The defence, led by counsel Mr. Mitul Singh Rana, contended that in light of the delay in sanction, the appellant was entitled to interim bail. The argument was based on the precedent set in Manjeet Singh vs. State of Punjab, where the court held that an accused could be released on interim bail if the sanction is not granted within the stipulated time.
Observations of the Court:
The court made several important observations while addressing these legal issues:
– On Delay in Sanction: The court acknowledged that while a delay in obtaining a sanction might lead to delays in trial proceedings, it does not amount to a violation of the accused’s right to a fair and speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution. The court referred to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Judgebir Singh and Ors. vs. National Investigation Agency, which stated, “The inordinate delay in placing the order of sanction before the Special Court may lead to delay in trial… but the same cannot be a ground to pray for statutory/default bail under the provisions of Section 167(2) of the CrPC.”
– On Grant of Interim Bail: The court noted, “There is no provision either in the CrPC or in the special statute (UAPA), where this Court is bestowed with any jurisdiction to grant any interim bail.” This crucial observation clarified that the appeal for interim bail was not supported by any legal provisions.
– Balancing Liberty and Legal Procedures: The court remarked, “The liberty of a citizen is sacrosanct,” but also stressed that such liberty must be balanced against statutory mandates, especially in cases involving allegations of serious criminal activities under stringent laws like the UAPA.
Court’s Decision on the Issues:
The court dismissed Baljit Singh’s appeal for interim bail, stating that the reliance on the Manjeet Singh vs. State of Punjab case was inapt. The bench distinguished the present case by underscoring that the precedent relied upon conflicted with the Supreme Court’s recent judgment, which did not allow for statutory or default bail due to delays in obtaining sanctions.
The High Court emphasized that neither the CrPC nor the UAPA contains provisions for granting interim bail. Consequently, the court found no merit in the appellant’s plea. The judgment affirmed that while delays in the sanction process might delay the trial, they do not breach Article 21 or warrant granting bail under Section 167(2) of the CrPC.
Case Details:
– Case Title: Baljit Singh vs. State of Punjab
– Case Number: CRA-D-1545-2023
– Bench:. Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Kuldeep Tiwari
– Counsel for Appellant: Mr. Mitul Singh Rana, Advocate
– Counsel for Respondent (State): Mr. D.S. Lamba, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab
– Nature of Appeal: Appeal against the order dated November 20, 2023, by the Additional Sessions Judge, Moga, denying interim bail.
– Legal Provisions Involved: Sections 120-B of IPC, Sections 10, 11, 13, 16, 17, 18, 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA), and relevant provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).
