LexJALALUDDIN KHAN versus UNION OF INDIA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 633 : 2024 INSC 604 Jalaluddin Khan v. Union of India (Criminal Appeal No. 3173 of 2024) 13 August 2024 [Abhay S. Oka* and Augustine George Masih, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Factors to be taken into consideration, under Section 43D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, while deciding Bail Applications for offences falling under Chapters IV and VI of the Act. Headnotes† Bail is the Rule and jail is an exception – Principle – Statutes with Stringent condition – Applicability of: Held: The Court while deciding an application of bail falling under the provisions of Section 43D (5) is not required to conduct a mini- trial – Only a prima facie case has to be established – The Court has to examine the material forming a part of the charge sheet to decide whether there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusations against the person applying for bail are prima facie true – While doing so, the court must take the charge sheet as it is – When a case is made out for a grant of bail, the Courts should not have any hesitation in granting bail – The allegations of the prosecution may be very serious – But, the duty of the Courts is to consider the case for grant of bail in accordance with the law – “Bail is the rule and jail is an exception” is a settled law – Even in cases of statutes where there are stringent conditions for the grant of bail, the same rule holds good with only a modification that the bail can be granted if the conditions in the statute are satisfied – The rule also means that once a case is made out for the grant of bail, the Court cannot decline to grant bail – If the Courts start denying bail in deserving cases, it will be a violation of the rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. [Para 15, 21] * Author 634 [2024] 8 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports Case Law Cited Shoma Kanti Sen v. State of Maharashtra and Another [2024] 4 SCR 270 : (2024) 6 SCC 591 : 2024 INSC 269; Gurwinder Singh v. State of Punjab and Another [2024] 2 SCR 134 : (2024) 5 SCC 403 : 2024 INSC 92; National Investigation Agency v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali [2019] 5 SCR 1060 : (2019) 5 SCC 1 : 2019 INSC 456 – referred to. Thwaha Fasal v. Union of India [2021] 8 SCR 797 : (2022) 14 SCC 766 : 2021 INSC 688 – relied upon. List of Acts Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. List of Keywords Bail is the Rule and Jail is the exception; Prima facie; Mini-trial. Case Arising From CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 3173 of 2024 From the Judgment and Order dated 28.11.2023 of the High Court of Judicature at Patna in CRADB No. 514 of 2023 Appearances for Parties Ms. Mukta Gupta, Sr. Adv., Shaikh Saipan Dastgir, Rizwan Ahmad, Ms. Nitya Gupta, Paras Nath Sing, Himanshu Gupta, Advs. for the Appellant. Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, A.S.G., Mrigank Pathak, Rajat Nair, Ms. Shagun Thakur, Ms. Chitrangda Rastvara, Ms. Neelakshi Bhadauria, Arvind Kumar Sharma, Advs. for the Respondent. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Judgment Abhay S. Oka, J. FACTUAL ASPECTS 1. The appellant is being prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 121, 121A and 122 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘the IPC’) and Sections 13, 18, 18A and 20 of the Unlawful Activities [2024] 8 S.C.R. 635 Jalaluddin Khan v. Union of India (Prevention) Act, 1967 (for short, ‘the UAPA’). A charge sheet was filed on 7th January 2023. He is shown as accused no.2 in the charge sheet. The appellant applied for bail before the Special Court under the UAPA, which was rejected. Hence, the appellant and some co- accused applied for bail before the High Court. By the impugned judgment, the prayer for bail made by the appellant was rejected, while bail was granted to a co-accused. SUBMISSIONS 2. The submission of Ms Mukta Gupta, learned senior counsel, is that there is absolutely no material to link the appellant with the offences under the UAPA. She pointed out that, at highest, the allegation is that the appellant’s wife was the owner of a building known as Ahmad Palace and that the appellant had clandestinely shown that premises on the first floor of the said building were given on rent to one Athar Parwez – Accused no. 1. The allegation is that, the first floor premises are being used for objectional activities of an organisation called Popular Front of India (PFI). She submitted that taking the charge sheet as it is, no connection has been establishe
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.