Supreme Court
New Delhi: An accused cannot be allowed to languish in jail without being given a fair and speedy trial, the Supreme Court on Wednesday said in a UAPA case.
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and K V Viswanathan, therefore, directed the trial court to expedite the trial and conclude it within two years considering there were over 100 witnesses to be examined by the prosecution.
The top court delivered its verdict on two appeals challenging an April 2022 order of the Karnataka High Court which granted bail to an accused in the case but denied the relief to another co-accused.
While the Centre’s appeal challenged the grant of bail, the other appeal was filed by the co-accused who was denied the relief.
An FIR was registered in Bengaluru against 17 accused persons in January 2020 for the alleged offences, including under the provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA).
The matter was subsequently referred to the National Investigation Agency and a chargesheet was filed in July 2020.
“However, the fact remains that the trial has not commenced despite lapse of five-and-a-half years. Accused cannot be allowed to languish in jail without being given a fair and speedy trial,” the bench said.
The reasons given for grant and denial of bail to the two accused, the bench said, were fully justified and reasonable.
The high court noted that allegations in the chargesheet related to the accused person’s connections with an organisation which admittedly was not banned under the schedule to UAPA.
The bench refused to interfere with the high court order granting bail to the accused.
Dealing with the plea of co-accused denied bail, the bench said the high court found his involvement with banned terrorist organisations besides his active role in operating dark web and assisting the members of the banned organisations.
“The reasons given by the high court are based upon the material collected during investigation and as reflected in the chargesheet,” it said.
The bench said the high court was justified in not granting him bail.
While dismissing the appeals, the top court directed the prosecution to ensure full cooperation in leading evidence and getting the trial concluded within the specified time and asked the accused to co-operate as well.
The bench said the trial court or the prosecuting agency was at liberty to apply for cancellation of bail of the accused in case it was found that he was trying to delay the trial.
This post was last modified on August 20, 2025 10:01 pm