Supreme Court Denies Bail in UAPA Case: Analysis of Terror Conspiracy and Legal Framework

The case of Gurwinder Singh v. State of Punjab & Another involves serious allegations under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), Indian Penal Code (IPC), and Arms Act. The Supreme Court denied bail to the accused, emphasizing the stringent provisions under UAPA that limit bail in cases involving terrorism-related offenses. The judgment provides an in-depth interpretation of Section 43D(5) of UAPA and its impact on an accused’s right to bail.

The case originated from an incident on October 19, 2018, when Punjab Police received intelligence about individuals putting up banners with slogans like ‘Khalistan Zindabad’ and ‘Khalistan Referendum 2020’ in Amritsar. Investigations led to multiple arrests, revealing a deeper nexus of a terrorist organization operating under the name ‘Sikhs for Justice.’ The National Investigation Agency (NIA) took over the probe due to the case’s severity.

Background of the Case

The police apprehended two individuals—Sukhraj Singh and Malkeet Singh—who were actively promoting separatist ideology. The investigation exposed a larger network linked to terrorism, leading to the arrest of several co-accused, including Gurwinder Singh. The allegations included receiving foreign funds through illegal hawala transactions to support extremist activities and attempts to procure weapons to further their cause.

The prosecution alleged that the accused was part of a well-planned conspiracy to promote the banned outfit’s objectives and that his involvement was evident from disclosure statements, phone records, and communication logs with other accused individuals.

Charges Against the Accused

The accused faced charges under:

Sections 124A (Sedition), 153A (Promoting enmity between different groups), 153B (Imputations, assertions prejudicial to national integration), and 120-B (Criminal conspiracy) of the IPC.
Sections 17 (Punishment for raising funds for terrorist acts), 18 (Punishment for conspiracy to commit terrorist acts), and 19 (Punishment for harboring a terrorist) of the UAPA.
Sections 25 and 54 of the Arms Act.

The prosecution contended that the accused was actively involved in attempting to procure weapons and received illegal funds from foreign handlers to spread terror in India.

Arguments on Behalf of the Petitioner

Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves, appearing for the petitioner, made the following arguments in favor of granting bail:

The prosecution heavily relied on the disclosure statement of co-accused Bikramjit Singh (@ Vicky), which should not be admissible as substantive evidence.
The petitioner’s mobile phone was never properly scrutinized, and the prosecution failed to present any direct incriminating conversations linking him to the conspiracy.
The accused has been in custody for over five years, violating the principle established in KA Najeeb v. Union of India, which emphasized that prolonged incarceration without trial violates personal liberty.
Only 19 out of 106 witnesses have been examined, indicating that the trial is moving at an extremely slow pace.
The accused’s name was missing from the terror funding chart, which raised questions about his involvement.
Out of nine protected witnesses examined, eight did not mention the accused, indicating a lack of direct evidence against him.

Arguments on Behalf of the Respondent

Additional Solicitor General Suryaprakash V. Raju presented counterarguments on behalf of the state, contending:

There was overwhelming evidence linking the accused to the terrorist module.
The petitioner knowingly accompanied other accused to Srinagar with the objective of procuring weapons.
The accused even suggested alternative sources for procuring arms from Western Uttar Pradesh.
Under Section 43D(5) of UAPA, if accusations appear prima facie true, bail must be denied.
The case involved an active terrorist gang led by a known separatist, and the accused played a role in its operations.
The possibility of the accused influencing witnesses was a real concern, given the sensitivity of the case.

Supreme Court’s Analysis

The Supreme Court undertook a detailed examination of the law and its application to the case. The judgment emphasized the restrictive nature of bail under UAPA and observed:

Unlike regular criminal cases, where ‘bail is the rule and jail is the exception,’ the UAPA mandates a stricter approach.
Section 43D(5) clearly states that if the allegations appear prima facie true, bail should be denied.
The court is not required to establish the guilt of the accused but only to assess whether the charges hold weight at a preliminary level.
The material evidence, including call records, disclosure statements, and investigative reports, indicated the accused’s involvement in furthering terrorist activities.
The slow pace of the trial was not a sufficient ground to grant bail in light of the serious allegations.

Key Takeaways from the Judgment

The UAPA imposes severe restrictions on bail, making it difficult for those accused of terrorist activities to secure release.
Disclosure statements, even if disputed, can be considered as corroborative evidence when supported by other materials.
Protected witnesses play a crucial role, and even indirect involvement in a terror module is sufficient to attract serious charges.
The standard of proof for denying bail under UAPA is lower than that required for conviction, emphasizing national security concerns.

Conclusion

Considering all factors, the Supreme Court dismissed the bail application and upheld the findings of the High Court and the Special Judge. The Court ruled that the material evidence was sufficient to establish a prima facie case against the accused, thereby justifying the continued denial of bail. The Court also clarified that its observations were only for the purpose of the bail hearing and would not affect the trial’s outcome.

This judgment reinforces the tough stance taken by Indian courts on cases involving terrorism and highlights the judiciary’s role in balancing personal liberty with national security concerns.

Petitioner Name: Gurwinder Singh.
Respondent Name: State of Punjab & Another.
Judgment By: Justice Aravind Kumar, Justice M.M. Sundresh.
Place Of Incident: Amritsar, Punjab.
Judgment Date: 07-02-2024.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: gurwinder-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-&-an-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-07-02-2024.pdf

Directly Download Judgment: Directly download this Judgment

See all petitions in Bail and Anticipatory Bail
See all petitions in Terrorist Activities
See all petitions in Judgment by Aravind Kumar
See all petitions in Judgment by M.M. Sundresh
See all petitions in dismissed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments February 2024
See all petitions in 2024 judgments

See all posts in Criminal Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category