In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court emphasized that restrictive clauses in stringent laws like the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) do not bar courts from granting bail when constitutional rights are at stake.
A Bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and Ujjal Bhuyan delivered this verdict while granting bail to a man accused of counterfeiting Indian currency. The man had been incarcerated for eight years following his 2015 arrest by the Anti-Terrorist Squad (ATS).
The Court underscored the sacrosanct nature of the right to life and personal liberty enshrined under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. It stated that no restrictive statutory provision should prevent a constitutional court from upholding these rights.
“Liberty is an intrinsic part of our constitutional jurisprudence. It would be wrong to assert that bail cannot be granted under a specific statute, as this contradicts our constitutional principles,” the Court declared.
The accused had been apprehended near the Sanoli Nepal Border with a large amount of counterfeit ₹1000 and ₹500 notes, totaling around ₹23-26 lakhs. Despite repeated rejections of his bail applications by lower courts, the Supreme Court acknowledged the prolonged nature of his trial and the infringement of his constitutional rights.
The Allahabad High Court had initially set aside certain proceedings against the accused under the UAPA due to improper sanction. However, this order was stayed by the Supreme Court pending a final verdict.
The defense argued that the accused had been in jail for eight years with no imminent conclusion to his trial. The High Court had previously denied bail, citing concerns about the accused’s potential failure to attend trial proceedings due to his Nepalese nationality.
Despite these concerns, the Supreme Court granted bail, emphasizing the priority of constitutional rights over restrictive statutory provisions. Advocates M S Khan, Tripurari Ray, Balwant Singh Billowria, Anirudh Ray, Qusar Khan, Akshay Singh, Vivekanand Singh, and Manu Shanker Mishra represented the accused, while Garima Prasad, Shaurya Sahay, and Shobhit Dwivedi represented the State of Uttar Pradesh.
