The High Court of Punjab and Haryana granted bail to a man accused of receiving arms, ammunition and explosive substances from across the border for using it to indulge in anti-national activities and held that besides the statement of the co-accused wherein he has stated that the appellant was also travelling ahead of them, there does not seem to be any material to connect the appellant with the commission of the offence and there are no reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against the appellant is prima facie true.
Brief Facts:
The accused booked under Sections 25(6), 25(7) of the Arms Act and Sections 10, 13, 18 and 20 of the UAPA Act and Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the Explosive Substances Act filed the present appeal challenging the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge dismissing his bail application under Section 439 CrPC after it was alleged that he along with other co-accused, was receiving arms, ammunition, and explosive substances from across the border and had been using them to indulge in anti-national activities, including spreading terror, etc.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that there is no prima facie material that would connect the appellant with the commission of offence except the statement made by the co-accused and there is discovery of any fact or any article in pursuance to the disclosure statement. Further, it was submitted that he did not have any criminal antecedents before his involvement in the instant case and after his arrest in this case, he was involved in another FIR which was registered 03 days prior to the registration of the instant case.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the state contended that after completion of the investigation, challan qua the appellant and other accused had been filed and the charges had been framed and now the case was fixed for prosecution evidence. Further, it was submitted that the appellant is not entitled to the benefit of regular bail in view of the serious allegations.
Observations of the court:
The court observed that besides the statement of the co-accused wherein he has stated that the appellant was also travelling ahead of them, there does not seem to be any material to connect the appellant with the commission of the offence and there is no recovery from the appellant and nothing to indicate that as per call locations or call details, the appellant was in touch with the co-accused in close proximity to the commission of the offence or their arrest as they are stated to have been apprehended along with arms and ammunition.
Further, it was stated that under the provisions of the UAPA Act, bail can be granted if the Court is of the opinion that there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the accusations against the accused are prima facie true and the provisions of the UAPA Act are stringent and therefore, at the same time, it is necessary for the Court to carefully scrutinize the material in reference to the accusation against the accused.
The court stated that in the present case, besides the statement of the co-accused that the appellant was also travelling ahead of them in his vehicle, there does not seem to be any other material at this stage which would connect the appellant with the commission of the offence and thus there are no reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against the appellant is prima facie true.
The decision of the Court:
The court allowed the appeal and granted bail to the petitioner.
Case Title: Nirmal Singh alias Nimma vs State of Punjab
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anupinder Singh Grewal and Hon’ble Ms. Justice Kirti Singh
Case No.: CRA-D-1111-2023
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Balbir Kumar Saini and Mr. Vikas Malik
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Harmandeep Singh Sullar
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
