Stay updated with the latest - Click here to follow us on Instagram
© The Indian Express Pvt Ltd
Tags:
Journalism of Courage
The language of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, (UAPA) 1967, “suggests the intention of the Legislature to make bail, the exception and jail, the rule”, the Supreme Court said, while denying bail to a member of the banned terror outfit, ‘Sikhs for Justice’.
“The conventional idea in bail jurisprudence vis-à-vis ordinary penal offences that the discretion of Courts must tilt in favour of the oft-quoted phrase – ‘bail is the rule, jail is the exception’ – unless circumstances justify otherwise – does not find any place while dealing with bail applications under UAP Act. The ‘exercise’ of the general power to grant bail under the UAP Act is severely restrictive in scope. The form of the words used in proviso to Section 43D (5)– ‘shall not be released’ in contrast with the form of the words as found in Section 437(1) CrPC – ‘may be released’ – suggests the intention of the Legislature to make bail, the exception and jail, the rule,” the order by Justice M M Sundresh and Justice Aravind Kumar stated.
Writing for the bench, Justice Kumar said in the February 7 order that “the courts are, therefore, burdened with a sensitive task on hand. In dealing with bail applications under UAP Act, the courts are merely examining if there is justification to reject bail. The ‘justifications’ must be searched from the case diary and the final report submitted before the Special Court. The legislature has prescribed a low, ‘prima facie’ standard, as a measure of the degree of satisfaction, to be recorded by Court when scrutinising the justifications (materials on record). This standard can be contrasted with the standard of ‘strong suspicion’, which is used by Courts while hearing applications for ‘discharge’.”
The ruling said that “in this background, the test for rejection of bail is quite plain…”
Stay updated with the latest - Click here to follow us on Instagram
