The High Court of Punjab and Haryana while granting bail to a murder accused, who was charged with UAPA due to misinterpretation of the statute by police issued directions to the Punjab Police to check misuse of the application of the Act and observed that mechanical and perfunctory manner of inclusion of offences under the UAPA Act ultimately causes deep trauma, upon the minds of the petitioner as the stringency and the exacting rigour, of the relevant provision of the UAPA Act, do thereby prima facie, forbid them, to claim the facility of bail from the Courts of Law.
Brief Facts:
The present bail application was filed by the petitioners, accused of attempt to murder under Sections 307, 341, 323, 427, 506, 148, 149, 34 and, under Sections 25, 27, 54, 59 of the Arms Act. The police later added Section 13 of the UAPA in 2022. It was alleged that a group of men were drinking liquor in front of the complainant's house. When the complainant asked them to stop creating a nuisance, a fight ensued. During the altercation, the accused persons fired upon the complainant and his relatives, resulting in firearm injuries.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the state contended that the petitioners are habitual offenders and therefore there is every likelihood of their re-indulging in crime events and thus they should not be granted bail. It was further submitted that the offence under UAPA had been added but the same was later deleted and the addition was done due to "misinterpretation" of the statute done by the Police.
Observations of the court:
The court stated that despite knowing the stringency of the policy, gross misinterpretations have been made and there is a need to be careful while dealing with UAPA it cannot be used as a tool for harassment and the addition and subsequent removal of UAPA shows a non-application of mind and some hidden ulterior motive of the police. Further, the court stated that the implication of excluding the provisions of UAPA from the chargesheet is that it makes the case of the petitioner easier for bail.
Further, the court stated that the repeated indulgences of the present bail applicants in crime does not yet preclude this Court, from enlarging them on regular bail, as the imposition of the hereafter onerous conditions upon them, rather would ensure that hereafter, they do not disturb public order, through theirs re-indulging in crime.
The court further observed that the mechanical and perfunctory manner of inclusion of offences under the UAPA Act, in the petition FIR, does ultimately cause deep trauma, upon the minds of the bail petitioner(s), as the stringency and the exacting rigor, of the relevant provision of the UAPA Act, do thereby prima facie, forbid them, to claim the facility of bail from the Courts of Law and the non-application of mind by the investigating officer concerned, to yet include offences under the UAPA Act, against the bail petitioner(s) in the present FIR, is thus, required to be curbed. The court thus issued the following directions:
(i) The Police Commissioner shall monitor the investigation on a day-to-day basis in the FIR, in which the Investigating Officer (IO) is collecting evidence to add an offence under UAPA.
(ii) After scrutiny and day-to-day monitoring of the investigation, there should be an "application of mind" to the incriminatory material collected against the prospective accused of UAPA, ensuring that the inclusion of offences under the Act is necessary.
(iii) In case there is a dereliction of duty on the part of the Police, the Director General of Police, Punjab, shall ensure appropriate action against the erring officer in accordance with law.
The decision of the Court:
The court allowed the petition and granted bail to the petitioners.
Case Title: Parmodh and anr. vs State of Punjab
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Hon’ble Mrs Justice Sudeepti Sharma
Case No.: CRM-M-52799-2022
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Jasdeep Singh Kailey and Mr. J.S. Dadwal
Advocate for the Respondent: Ms. Monika Jalota and Mr. Vivel Sharma
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
