Offences under Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967 and Principles to be Applied by Courts

Offences under Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967 and Principles to be Applied by Courts

In an important Judgment, the principles which are applied in cases involving allegations under Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967 were discussed. The case revolved around grant / denial of bail to a person involved in alleged offences under UAPA, 1967.

Allegations of this Case : It was also alleged that each of the conspirators had played a vital role in the planning, strategizing, and execution of the criminal conspiracy, all under the guise of protest against the CAA/NRC. The masterminds/top conspirators, he submitted, disseminated their messages through various speeches, pamphlets, WhatsApp Groups, etc., and their instructions were carried out by the foot soldiers. It was also alleged that keeping in view the large-scale violence that was sought to be undertaken, and which eventually took place in late February of 2020, resulting in the loss of 53 lives, causing injuries to numerous members of the public, Police Officers and causing damage to the public properties, the accused persons are not entitled to bail.

Principles Applicable

There is a statutory embargo placed upon the Courts under Section 43D of the UA(P) Act. From a reading of the above, it is clear that the Courts‟ discretion to grant bail is circumscribed by virtue of Section 43D(5) of the UA (P) Act. The proviso itself states that the accused person shall “not” be released on bail if the Court, upon perusal of the case diary or the final report submitted by the Investigation Agency, is of the opinion that there are reasonable grounds to believe the accusations against the accused are prima facie true.

Thus, the position of law is no longer res integra as to the guidelines that the Courts should generally adhere to while deciding the grant or refusal of bail to an accused booked for offences under the UA (P) Act. The Court has to examine whether there are reasonable grounds to believe the allegations against an accused to be prima facie true, considering the material collected by the investigating agency presented alongwith the final report. The admissibility and credibility of the evidence cannot be examined at the stage of bail, and such material must be presumed to be true.

It has been held by the Supreme Court that the rigorous provisions laid down by such Special Statutes place an embargo on the Courts, ordinarily leading to the rejection of bail to an accused.

However, the grant of bail on the sole ground of long incarceration and delay in trial is not a universally applicable rule in all the cases.

We should be conscious that the right to participate in peaceful protests and to make speeches in public meetings is protected under Article 19(1)(a), and the same cannot be blatantly curtailed. Nonetheless, this right is not absolute, as it is subject to the reasonable restrictions imposed by the Constitution. If the exercise of an unfettered right to protest were permitted, it would damage the constitutional framework and impinge upon the law-and-order situation in the country. Any conspiratorial violence under the garb of protests or demonstrations by the citizens cannot be permitted. Such actions must be regulated and checked by the State Machinery, as they do not fall within the ambit of the Freedom of Speech, Expression, and Association.

Keeping in view the nature of the allegations, and specifically the submission of the learned Solicitor General and the learned SPP that the present was not a case of regular protest/riot matter, but rather a premeditated, well-orchestrated conspiracy to commit unlawful activities threatening the unity, integrity, and sovereignty of India, it becomes the arduous task of the Court to strike a balance between individual rights and the interests of the nation, as well as the safety and security of the general public at large. Therefore, bail was denied to the accused.

For more details refer Sharjeel Imam v. State of NCTD [2025] GCtR 1462 (Delhi).