Court Upholds Stringent UAPA Provisions; Highlights Serious Allegations and Seizure of Explosive Materials
he Delhi High Court, in a significant ruling, has denied bail to Mohd. Saquib Ansari and Waqar Azhar, alleged members of the banned terrorist organization Indian Mujahideen, accused of conspiring and preparing for terrorist attacks. The judgment was delivered by a division bench comprising Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Madhu Jain, who underscored the gravity of the charges and the substantial seizure of explosive materials from the accused.
The appellants, arrested in connection with FIR No. 54/2011 registered at PS Special Cell, Delhi Police, sought bail under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA). They were charged under various sections of the UAPA, Explosive Substances Act, and Indian Penal Code. Despite prolonged incarceration, the court held that the stringent requirements under Section 43D(5) of UAPA were not met, as there were reasonable grounds to believe the accusations were prima facie true.
The court emphasized the role of the accused in the Rajasthan module of Indian Mujahideen and the seriousness of the allegations, including possession of significant quantities of explosive materials and preparation for a major terrorist attack. The court noted that while prolonged detention raises constitutional concerns, it does not automatically override statutory restrictions under UAPA, especially when national security is at stake.
The judgment also discussed the issue of bail parity, stating that it cannot be the sole ground for granting bail. The court distinguished the appellants' case from a co-accused who was granted bail, highlighting the significant recovery of explosives and evidence indicating the appellants' central role in the conspiracy.
This judgment reaffirms the Delhi High Court's stance on handling cases under UAPA with stringent scrutiny, ensuring that national security considerations are adequately addressed while balancing individual rights. The court dismissed the appeals, maintaining that the appellants' release could pose a threat to national security.
Bottom line:-
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 - Bail under Section 43D(5) - Appellants, accused of being members of a banned terrorist outfit "Indian Mujahideen," involved in conspiring and preparing for terrorist attacks, were denied bail - Court emphasized the seriousness of the allegations, the seizure of explosive materials, the role of the accused, and the test under Section 43D(5) of UAPA for determining a prima facie case.
Statutory provision(s): Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 Sections 43D(5), 18, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 Section 439, Constitution of India Article 21
Mohd.Saquib Ansari v. State NCT of Delhi, (Delhi)(DB) : Law Finder Doc id # 2888485
