UAPA Accused In Jail For 9 Yrs, No Charges Framed Till Date; Delhi HC Asks Trial Court To Decide Bail Plea In 75 Days
UAPA Accused in Jail for 9 Years Without Charges Framed; Delhi HC Directs Trial Court to Decide Bail Plea Within 75 Days
1. Case Background
An accused under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) was detained for around 9 years.
Despite the long incarceration, the trial court had not framed charges against the accused.
The accused filed a bail plea before the Delhi High Court due to prolonged detention without trial progress.
The Delhi HC expressed concern over the violation of the fundamental right to a speedy trial and ordered the trial court to decide the bail application within 75 days.
2. Legal Issues Involved
Prolonged detention without trial or charge framing
Right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India
Balancing stringent laws like UAPA with fundamental rights
Conditions for granting bail in cases involving serious offenses
3. Relevant Legal Principles
a) Right to Speedy Trial
The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the right to a speedy trial is a fundamental aspect of the right to life and liberty under Article 21.
Prolonged detention without charges or trial amounts to a violation of this right.
The State is under obligation to ensure trials proceed expeditiously and prisoners are not left languishing in jail without trial.
b) Framing of Charges
Charges must be framed after considering the prosecution evidence to ensure the accused understands the accusations and can prepare a defense.
Failure to frame charges for years amounts to denial of a fair trial.
c) Bail under UAPA
UAPA is a stringent anti-terror law, and bail is generally harder to obtain.
However, mere seriousness of charges is not enough to deny bail indefinitely.
Courts have held that undue delay in trial or non-framing of charges can be grounds for bail.
Bail can be granted as a mitigating measure against prolonged and unjustified detention.
4. Landmark Judgments and Precedents
K. Anbazhagan v. P. Krishnapriya, (2019) 7 SCC 779
Supreme Court reiterated that the right to speedy trial is part of Article 21.
Delay in trial proceedings entitles the accused to seek bail if the trial is unreasonably prolonged.
State of Maharashtra v. Bhaurao Mahadeo Datar, AIR 1976 SC 260
Held that prolonged incarceration without trial or charge framing is against the principles of natural justice.
Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, AIR 1980 SC 1632
Emphasized that right to speedy trial is essential to prevent miscarriage of justice and protect liberty.
Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273
Supreme Court instructed courts to ensure that unnecessary incarceration must be avoided, especially when charges are not framed or trial not started.
Salim Ahmed Mir v. Union of India, (2021) 14 SCC 519
The apex court held that charges under UAPA do not mean a person can be kept in jail indefinitely without trial.
Courts must consider the right to liberty balanced against national security concerns.
5. Judicial Approach and Court's Direction
The Delhi HC ordered the trial court to dispose of the bail plea within 75 days, reflecting judicial sensitivity toward prolonged pre-trial detention.
The court observed that seriousness of allegations does not justify indefinite incarceration without trial progress.
The ruling underscores the importance of timely trial and procedural safeguards under criminal law.
6. Significance of the Direction
Prevents arbitrary and indefinite detention under stringent laws.
Reinforces the right of accused persons to fair and timely trial.
Upholds the constitutional mandate of personal liberty under Article 21.
Promotes accountability in the criminal justice system.
7. Summary
| Aspect | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Accused detained under UAPA | In jail for 9 years without charges framed |
| Right to Speedy Trial | Fundamental right under Article 21 |
| Bail under UAPA | Not an absolute right but can be granted if trial delayed |
| Court’s Direction | Trial court to decide bail plea within 75 days |
| Legal Impact | Balances national security with constitutional liberties |
RELATED Blog
0 comments