Court upholds stringent bail conditions under UAPA, citing serious allegations of organized crime and involvement in terrorist activities.
In a significant judgment, the Jharkhand High Court has denied bail to Kundan Kumar, an accused in a high-profile case involving allegations of organized crime and terrorism under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), 1967. The Division Bench, comprising Justices Sujit Narayan Prasad and Gautam Kumar Choudhary, delivered the verdict on 11 March 2026, emphasizing the paramount importance of national security over individual liberty in such grave matters.
Kundan Kumar, who was arrested on 19 July 2021, stands accused of being involved with a gang led by Aman Sahu and Sujit Sinha. The prosecution alleges that he played a crucial role in facilitating terrorist activities, including harboring absconding accused and handling arms and ammunition. The court noted that the allegations against Kumar were prima facie true, as per the stringent conditions set forth under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA, which severely restricts the granting of bail in cases involving national security.
The case stems from an incident on 18 December 2020, where unknown assailants reportedly burned vehicles and fired at a police party near Tetariakhand colliery, leading to the registration of Balumath P.S. Case No. 234/2020. The investigation was later taken over by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) due to the cross-border and international ramifications of the offence.
In its detailed judgment, the court reiterated that long incarceration and delay in trial could not be the sole grounds for granting bail in cases with serious allegations under the UAPA. It highlighted that the statutory mandate under Section 43D(5) requires a stringent assessment of the prima facie truth of allegations, prioritizing national interest and societal security over individual liberty.
The court also addressed the principle of parity, stating that it cannot be applied mechanically without considering the individual roles and culpability of the accused. The court noted that the case against Kumar was similar to that of another co-accused, Akash Kumar Roy, whose bail had also been rejected. The allegations against Kumar included facilitation of terrorist activities and recovery of arms, distinct from other co-accused who were granted bail.
Furthermore, the court underscored the need for disciplined judicial scrutiny, balancing the societal impact and individual rights under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. It emphasized that prosecutions alleging offences implicating the sovereignty, integrity, or security of the State require heightened scrutiny, and delay in trial does not automatically displace statutory restraints.
The judgment serves as a reminder of the stringent conditions imposed by the UAPA on granting bail, especially in cases involving serious threats to national security. The court's decision underscores the judiciary's role in safeguarding national interests while ensuring that individual rights are not rendered illusory.
Bottom Line:
Bail application under UAPA - Bail cannot be granted solely on the grounds of long incarceration and delay in trial - Allegations involving national security, organized criminal activities, and societal impact are paramount - Accusations against the accused found prima facie true under Section 43D(5) of UAPA, 1967, which imposes stringent conditions for bail.
Statutory provision(s): Section 43D(5) of UAPA, 1967; Section 147, 148, 149, 353, 504, 506, 307, 427, 435, 386, 387, 120B, 121A, 216 of IPC; Section 25(1)(b), 26, 27, 35 of Arms Act; Section 3, 4 of Explosive Substance Act; Section 17 of CLA Act, 1908.
Kundan Kumar v. National Investigation Agency, (Jharkhand)(DB) : Law Finder Doc id # 2864633
