news details |
|
|
| SC holds 180-day bail lock in terror cases | | |
New Delhi: One can be denied bail for upto 180 days though the organisation the accused worked for at the time of the arrest might not have been a banned group, the Supreme Court has held.
Under normal circumstances, a person is entitled to grant of bail if the investigating agency fails to file chargesheet within 90 days. However, under special legislations like the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA), the accused can be denied bail upto 180 days.
A Bench of justices Altamas Kabir and Cyriac Joseph passed the order while dismissing a special leave petition (SLP) filed by Redaul Hussain Khan and Mohit Hojai against whom the National Investigating Agency had filed cases for their alleged link with the Dima Halam Daogah (Joel) DHD (J), a separatist organisation in Assam.
The charge against the duo was that they were funding the activities of the DHD(J). Khan, in fact, was working as a deputy director, Social Welfare Department cum liaison officer at North Cachar Hills, Assam at the time of his arrest on May 31, 2009 by the state police.
However, the investigation was subsequently taken over by the NIA which on June 5 registered a separate FIR against them.
In the meantime, the Centre on July 9, by a notification under the UAPA, declared the DHD(J) along with its other factions, as an "unlawful association".
The accused moved the sessions court Kamrup, Guwahati for bail which was rejected and the Guwhati High Court upheld the rejection, following which the accused moved the apex court.
Senior counsel Pradip Ghosh appearing for the accused took the plea that the accused cannot be denied bail after 90 days of arrest as the organisation was banned only on July 9, whereas they were arrested on May 31.
He submitted that since the NIA had not filed chargesheet within the stipulated 60-90 days as provided under 167 (2)CrPC, the accused were entitled to bail.
The Centre, however, opposed the plea and said that though the organisation was banned subsequently, the provisions of the Act was applied retrospectively to deny bail upto a period of 180 days.
Agreeing with the Centre's submission, the apex court said, "We have carefully considered the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties and we are unable to agree with Mr Ghosh (defence counsel) that the provisions of the UAPA would not be attracted to the facts of the case.
"We are also unable to accept Mr Ghosh's submission that merely because DHD(J) had not been declared as 'unlawful association' when the petitioner was arrested, the said organisation could not have indulged in terrorist acts or that the petitioner could not have had knowledge of such activities."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
