Restrictive clauses in laws like UAPA do not prevent courts from granting bail: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Thursday observed that restrictive clauses of stringent penal statutes do not prevent courts from granting bail [Sheikh Javed Iqbal @ Ashfaq Ansari @ Javed Ansari v State of Uttar Pradesh]..A Bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and Ujjal Bhuyan made the observation while granting bail to a man who had been accused of offences under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) on allegations that he was involved in the counterfeiting of Indian currency. The man had remained in jail for eight years after his 2015 arrest by the Anti-Terrorist Squad (ATS) before he was granted bail today by the Supreme Court. “Right to life and personal liberty enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is overarching and sacrosanct. A constitutional court cannot be restrained from granting bail to an accused on account of restrictive statutory provisions in a penal statute if it finds that the right of the accused-undertrial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India has been infringed. In that event, such statutory restrictions would not come in the way. Even in the case of interpretation of a penal statute, howsoever stringent it may be, a constitutional court has to lean in favour of constitutionalism and the rule of law of which liberty is an intrinsic part ... it would be very wrong to say that under a particular statute, bail cannot be granted. It would run counter to the very grain of our constitutional jurisprudence," the Court said while pronouncing its decision..The accused man had been arrested near the Sanoli Nepal Border by the ATS in 2015, on allegations that he was found with a huge quantity of fake Indian currency of the ₹1000 and ₹500 denomination, and totaling around ₹23-26 lakhs. He was accused of offences under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).His first bail application was rejected in 2016 by a Sessions Court in Lucknow, after which he approached the Allahabad High Court for relief. .Meanwhile, certain proceedings initiated against the accused under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) were set aside by the Allahabad High Court in 2021 on the ground that proper sanction was not obtained. This order was challenged by the ATS before the Supreme Court, which stayed the High Court's 2021 order but was yet to pronounce a final verdict on this aspect. As a result, the counsel for the accused told the High Court that the criminal trial is unlikely to conclude any time soon. Therefore, he urged the High Court to allow the release of the accused on bail, considering that he has been in jail for eight years. However, in April 2023, the Allahabad High Court rejected the bail plea after noting that the accused was from Nepal and may not attend trial proceedings if he were allowed to be released from prison.This High Court order was then challenged before the Supreme Court, which has now allowed the bail plea. .Advocates M S Khan, Tripurari Ray, Balwant Singh Billowria, Anirudh Ray, Qusar Khan, Akshay Singh, Vivekanand Singh and Advocate-on-Record (AOR) Manu Shanker Mishra appeared for the accused. Senior Additional Advocate General Garima Prasad, AOR Shaurya Sahay and Advocate Shobhit Dwivedi represented the State of Uttar Pradesh. .[Read judgment].Follow Bar and Bench channel on WhatsAppDownload the Bar and Bench Mobile app for instant access to the latest legal news.