Punjab and Haryana High Court Upholds Denial of Bail in High-Profile Narco-Terrorism Case

Court cites strong prima facie evidence under UAPA, emphasizing national security concerns and potential flight risk of accused.

In a significant ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the bail applications of Gurmej Singh and Gurmukh Singh, both implicated in a complex narco-terrorism case involving international narcotics smuggling and terror funding. The bench, comprising Justices Gurvinder Singh Gill and Ramesh Kumari, reinforced the stringent bail provisions under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), 1967, which mandates detention over bail when prima facie evidence supports allegations of terrorism.

The appellants were accused of engaging in activities that posed a substantial threat to national security. The case centered around allegations of smuggling narcotics and arms across the India-Pakistan border, with proceeds allegedly funneled into terror activities within India. The court, after careful examination of the evidence, including digital data and material recoveries, concluded that the accusations against the appellants were prima facie true, thereby invoking the stringent bail limitations under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA.

The court's decision reflected a balance between individual liberty and national security, highlighting the legislative intent behind the UAPA to prioritize detention in cases involving terrorism. The bench cited previous Supreme Court judgments to emphasize that under the UAPA, the usual bail principle of "bail is the rule, jail is the exception" is reversed, making detention the norm when sufficient prima facie evidence exists.

In dismissing the appeals, the court also underscored procedural directives for the trial court to expedite proceedings, ensuring a swift trial by securing witness attendance and setting a detailed schedule for evidence recording. This move aims to address concerns of prolonged incarceration without trial, aligning with Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees the right to a speedy trial.

The court noted the serious nature of the alleged offenses, including the recovery of arms, ammunition, and narcotics, and the accused's alleged connections with international terrorist networks. The judgment stressed the potential flight risk posed by the accused, given their purported links to handlers across the border.

This ruling reinforces the judiciary's stance on prioritizing national security in the face of serious allegations under the UAPA, while also pushing for procedural efficiency in the trial process.

Bottom Line:

Under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), 1967, Section 43D(5) creates a stringent embargo on granting bail to accused individuals if the court, after examining the case diary or charge sheet, finds prima facie evidence supporting the accusations of involvement in terror-related activities.

Statutory provision(s): Section 43D(5) UAPA, Article 21 of the Constitution of India, Section 173 Cr.P.C., Sections 120B IPC, 25(1 A) Arms Act, NDPS Act provisions, Explosive Substance Act provisions.

The judgment reflects the court's commitment to uphold the stringent standards set by anti-terrorism laws while ensuring that the principles of a fair trial are not compromised.

Gurmej Singh v. Union of India, (Punjab And Haryana)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2819850