The High Court of Punjab and Haryana granted bail to a woman accused under UAPA after her husband, co-accused mentioned her involvement in his disclosure statement and held that the disclosure statement would be admissible if it led to discovery of fact and no incriminating material had been found against the petitioner which would indicate her prime facie involvement in the commission of the offence.
Brief Facts:
The appellant filed the present petition against the order dismissing her bail application under Section 239 CrPC after an FIR was registered against her under Sections 25(6) and 25(7) of the Arms Act, Sections 10, 13, 18 and 20 of UAPA and Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the Explosive Substances Act.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that there was no prima facie material that would connect the appellant with the commission of offence except the statement of the co-accused, who is the husband of the appellant and there is no discovery of any fact or article pursuance to the disclosure statement. It was further submitted that the appellant was at the advanced stage of pregnancy when she had been arrested and had given birth to a child in jail and was not involved in any other criminal case.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the state contended that the appellant had been arraigned as an accused on the statement of the co-accused and further that although the challan had been filed, the charges were yet to be farmed.
Observations of the court:
The court referred to the disclosure statement of the co-accused and stated that although it was described as a closure statement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, there was no discovery of any fact or recovery of any incriminating material from the appellant.
The court then referred to the judgment in Jaffar Hussain Dastagir vs State of Maharashtra which held that the disclosure statement would be admissible if it led to discovery of fact which was relied upon by the Supreme Court in the case of Yedala Subba Rao and anr. vs. Union of India.
The court stated that the provisions of UAPA are stringent but at the same time, it is necessary for the court to carefully scrutinize and peruse the material against an accused. Further, the court stated that it would not direct the release of the petitioner under Section 43(D)(5) of the UAPA if there are reasonable grounds for believing that the allegations are prima facie true but in the present case, besides the statement of the co-accused, no incriminating material had been found against the petitioner which would indicate her prime facie involvement in the commission of the offence and at the time of arrest, she was stated to be at an advanced stage of pregnancy and a child was born in jail and by now, she has been put in almost a year in custody and further the affidavits filed by the state did not disclose any recovery from the appellant.
The court concluded that there was no prima facie material that would implicate the appellant for the commission of an offence under Sections 10, 13, 18 and 20 of the UAPA.
The decision of the Court:
The court allowed the appeal and released the appellant on bail.
Case Title: Sukhpreet Kaur vs State of Punjab
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anupinder Singh Grewal and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Lalit Batra
Case No.: CRA-D-542-2023
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Arshdeep Singh Brar
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Karunesh Kaushal
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
