UAPA

The Supreme Court held that the bail bar in Section 43D(7) of the UAP Act applies only when the prosecution prima facie shows that the accused is not an Indian citizen and entered India unauthorisedly or illegally. A visa overstay after a lawful entry does not qualify. Dismissing the Union's appeal, it upheld the Madras High Court's order restoring an alleged Sri Lankan national's default bail (paras 30-31, 47, 50).

In the 2010 Jnaneshwari Express derailment case, the Supreme Court held that Section 436-A CrPC cannot apply where death is a possible punishment, as under Section 302 IPC and Section 16 UAPA, and that Article 21 cannot be the sole consideration where national security is involved. Yet, with the accused jailed for about twelve years, no misuse of bail and 28 witnesses still to be examined, it declined to cancel their bail and issued directions to speed up reverse-burden trials (paras 11, 16, 21-24).

The Supreme Court refused regular bail to Harpreet Singh Talwar, accused of facilitating heroin imports concealed as Afghan talc through Mundra Port, holding that the material met the prima facie threshold under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA though nothing was recovered from his consignment. Dead and untraceable witnesses, antecedents and flight risk weighed against bail, but he may renew his plea after six months or on substantial progress of the trial (paras 23-35).

The Supreme Court held that a person arrested under the UAPA, or for any other offence, has a fundamental and statutory right to receive the grounds of arrest in writing, applying Pankaj Bansal to Section 43B(1) of the UAPA. As Prabir Purkayastha was remanded at 6:00 a.m. before written grounds reached him or his lawyer, his arrest and remand were declared invalid and he was ordered released on bail bonds (paras 20, 50-53).

The Supreme Court dismissed the NIA's appeal against bail granted to a UAPA accused who had spent over five years in custody with 276 witnesses still to be examined (paras 6, 15, 21). Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA "per-se does not oust the ability of Constitutional Courts to grant bail on grounds of violation of Part III of the Constitution", and its rigours "will melt down" where a timely trial is unlikely and much of the sentence has already been undergone (para 18).