Premium
This is an archive article published on August 25, 2023

UAPA was not applicable while deciding bail in Pradeep Sharma case, says SC

Sharma’s lawyer Chandan Shekhawat on Thursday approached the special court in Mumbai to complete the bail formalities. The court allowed him to furnish provisional cash bail and he is likely to be released on Friday from Yerwada Central Jail where he was lodged.

Pradeep SharmaPradeep Sharma was arrested in the case in June 2021. (File)
Listen to this article
UAPA was not applicable while deciding bail in Pradeep Sharma case, says SC
x
00:00
1x 1.5x 1.8x

The Supreme Court, while granting bail to former “encounter specialist” Pradeep Sharma in the Antilia terror threat case on Wednesday, has observed that invoking of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) was not applicable at the stage of deciding bail. Sharma was arrested in the case in June 2021.

The detailed bail order copy was made available on Thursday. While granting him bail, a bench of justices AS Bopanna and PS Narasimha observed, “…the (Bombay) High Court has observed that the (NIA) charge sheet does not prima facie disclose that the appellant (Sharma) was involved in the conspiracy of planting gelatin sticks in the Scorpio vehicle. Hence it was observed that… provisions of the Explosive Substances Act and Arms Act were not applied by the NIA against the appellant, (and) it was only during the course of the arguments the prosecution was trying to link the appellant with the Scorpio vehicle-laden with gelatin sticks.”

The court further observed, “The said observations made by the High Court would in fact indicate that in the present facts, as against the role assigned to the appellant, invoking of the UAPA would pale into insignificance and the rigor of that law would not be applicable at this stage while considering the application of the appellant for bail.”

Story continues below this ad

The bench further observed, “…we have noted the circumstances alleged against the appellant to contend that he was complicit to the crime of murdering Mansukh Hiren. They are also matters of evidence which is to be established during the trial by connecting the chain of circumstances to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. However, for the present, having noted that the charge under UAPA would pale into insignificance and even if the remaining charge based on circumstantial evidence is kept in view, in so far as the role assigned to the appellant, the other circumstances which are relevant for grant of bail would be appropriate to be taken note of.”

It further observed, “In that regard, the appellant was arrested as far back as 17.06.2021 and has been in custody throughout, except for the brief period when this court had released him on interim bail so as to attend to the medical treatment of his wife. In so far as the appellant is concerned, he has been interrogated and a charge sheet has been filed. Since all witnesses out of more than 300 witnesses named are to be examined..the process will not conclude in the near future.”

The order further said, “In so far as the role alleged against the appellant, as already noted by the High Court, the charge sheet does not disclose that the appellant was involved in the conspiracy of planting gelatin sticks in the Scorpio vehicle. As per the charge, the appellant is stated to have conspired with Sachin Waze and others to eliminate Mansukh Hiren which is a matter of circumstantial evidence to be proved by the prosecution.”

“Though the High Court has arrived at the conclusion that the appellant being a retired police officer, there is the likelihood of interference in the course of trial, in our opinion the fact that he was a police officer and has retired after rendering 37 years of service is a factor which should weigh in favour of the appellant as he has strong root in Mumbai and would be available to stand trial. The case is being prosecuted by a different agency-the NIA. That apart, there is no adverse report about the conduct of the appellant while he was out on interim bail,” the court observed.

Story continues below this ad

“In addition, it has also been urged before us that he has his mother aged about 93 years to care for, his wife who is also not enjoying good health… Therefore, if all the above aspects are kept in view, we are of the opinion that in the present facts, taking note of the role assigned to the appellant as also the circumstances stated to connect the appellant to the crime and also the fact that the charge sheet has already been filed, there would be no purpose in continuing the appellant in custody,” the order added.

Sharma’s lawyer Chandan Shekhawat on Thursday approached the special court in Mumbai to complete the bail formalities. The court allowed him to furnish provisional cash bail and he is likely to be released on Friday from Yerwada Central Jail where he was lodged. As per orders of the Supreme Court, the special court set various conditions for his release on bail. Sharma has been directed to inform the NIA about his latest place of residence, his contact number and to cooperate in the trial proceedings. He has been directed not to tamper with the evidence in any manner.

On February 25 2021, a Scorpio vehicle containing gelatin sticks was found outside Antilia – the residence of industrialist Mukesh Ambani. A few days later on March 5, Thane-resident Mansukh Hiren, whose Scorpio vehicle had been used for the threat, was found dead in the case. Since the two matters were related, they were clubbed together and the probe was handed over to the NIA which arrested ten persons including Sharma in the case.

Stay updated with the latest - Click here to follow us on Instagram

Latest Comment
Post Comment
Read Comments
Advertisement
Loading Taboola...
Advertisement