UAPA- jail to mastermind and bail to minion

 

UAPA- jail to mastermind and bail to minion

 

 Recently a larger conspiracy case related to year 2020 Delhi riots which is reported to have claimed 54 lives   is much in debate on account of non grant of bail to two  accused  Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam having being served chart sheet under the offence of UAPA, IPC and other law. It might have got unnoticed in social media, but a panel of senior advocate of   Dushyant Dave , retired  Justice  Madan B Lokur and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia retired with moderator senior advocate Kapil Sibbal . All are associated with Supreme Court . Kapil Sibbal  made viral this panel discussion  which raises  many questions and  allegations as much as the debate was dented by narrative to the effect that   if kapil Sibbal  does not secure bail for his client , then the bench is not good. Panel had the audacity to say that such an important case should not have been dealt by this bench comprising of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice N V Anjarai .The discussion being that  chief Justice of India must take cognizance of this aspect in future.  The panel lacks the honest discussion. If Sibbal  had invited the advocate from prosecution, healthy legal deliberation could be of great advantage to all the people of India. It appears from the panel discussion that  novice audience  who lack legal knowledge of criminal jurisprudence  be told and made believed  that the Judiciary is in the state of collapse. This video fulfills all ingredients of intimidation and contempt of the Court.

Legal reading of the judgment and  the birds view is therefore necessary to dispell the clouds of media trial of the Apex Court. It is the duty of the legal fraternity to bring to the fore  the highlights  of the judgment  to inspire the confidence of the people of India in the institution of judiciary. The judgment has been logically divided  in  headings. For the current discussion four shall be discussed hereunder

1 Prolong incarnation and the constitutional plea under article 21 -appreciating the ratio decidendi in cases of  N K  Najeeb, Gurvinder Singh, Dayamani Mayamony, Court held that article 21 cannot be constructed in vacuum in the cases where the charges relates to national Security and  integrity under the special act like  UAPA .Judgment states that at the stage of the compliance under section 207 CRPC, certain accused declined to receive copies and contributed to delay at Pre Charge stage. Apex Court refused to accept the argument of delay simpliciter for bail in this case as much as that the individual right has to be balanced with collective security.Therefore prolonged incarceration parameter can not be applied mechanically.

 

2. statutory framework of section 43d(5) and the scope of judicial inquiry at the bail stage – Judgement reads that Chapters IV and VI of UAPA Act  do not confine criminal liability to the final execution of a terrorist act alone. They extend culpability to preparation, facilitation, abetment, and conspiracy, recognising that the threat sought to be addressed by the statute often materialises long before any overt act of violence is committed. The law thus proceeds on a process-based conception of criminality rather than an event-based one. These aspects make bail adjudication different from the other cases hence judicial restrain is expected while deciding the application for grant of bail.

3. scope of “terrorist act” under section 15 and the statutory context – Judgement underlines that the  consequences contemplated under Section 15  illuminate the legislative understanding of terrorism. Apart from death or destruction of property, the provision expressly encompasses acts which disrupt supplies or services essential to the life of the community, as well as acts which threaten the economic security of the nation. This reflects Parliament’s recognition that threats to sovereignty and security may arise through conduct that destabilises civic life or societal functioning, even in the absence of immediate physical violence.UAPA Act further recognises that such acts may be the result of collective and coordinated effort as muchas Section 18 makes punishable conspiracy, attempt, abetment, advice, incitement, and knowing facilitation of a terrorist act, as also acts preparatory to its commission. The statutory scheme thus contemplates that terrorist activity may involve multiple actors performing different roles towards a common unlawful objective.

4. Individualized role and differentiation in treatment of the prime conspirators with others-The Judgment discusses that the law of conspiracy explains how several persons, acting at different levels and at different points of time, may be bound together by a common design. That doctrine answers the question of liability. It does not answer, by itself, the separate question of how long and on what basis the liberty of each individual may be restrained before guilt is proved. Bail adjudication therefore necessarily proceeds on a different plane. It requires the Court to look at what is attributed to each accused, how that attribution fits within the statutory ingredients, and whether continued detention, at that stage, serves a legitimate purpose recognised by law. This exercise does not dismantle the prosecution case of conspiracy, nor does it rank culpability. It merely ensures that pre-trial detention does not become indiscriminate or automatic, and that statutory restraint operates with reason, proportion, and fidelity to individual attribution.Hence  differentiation is not an exception to conspiracy law, but a constitutional discipline imposed upon the exercise of bail jurisdiction.

Judgment  also underlines that it is well recognised that Article 21 rights, though not absolute, require the State and the Court to justify continued custody with reference to the specific individual before it. Treating all accused identically irrespective of their roles would risk transforming pre-trial detention into a punitive mechanism divorced from individual circumstances. The constitutional mandate demands a differentiated inquiry: where prolonged custody disproportionately burdens those whose roles are limited, the balance between individual liberty and collective security may call for conditional release, while the same balance may tilt differently for those alleged to have orchestrated the offence.There is reasonable classification between the accused responsible for managerial responsibility and involvement of others through associative or peripheral conduct. Therefore jail for mastermind who are two in number  and Bail for other five in number.

Therefore one can conclude without any difficulty that  the judgment is  self  speaking as much as it clearly underlines  the legal principles of criminal jurisprudence having regard to special law like UAPA and Constitutional plea of Article 21 along with the law of conspiracy and the guidelines for the adjudication of bail application keeping in view the prolonged incarceration.To conclude one can say that jail to mastermind and bail to minion.