JAHIR HAK versus THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN
[2022] 3 S.C.R. 101, Supreme Court of India, 2022
Outcome: Appeal(s) allowed (Granted)
Segment: Ratio
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
101
   [2022] 3 S.C.R. 101
101
JAHIR HAK
v.
THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN
(Criminal Appeal No. 605 of 2022)
April 11, 2022
[K. M. JOSEPH AND HRISHIKESH ROY, JJ. ]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.439 – Application for
anticipatory bail by undertrial prisoner who has undergone 8 years
of incarceration – Appellant was arrested in connection with FIR
for offences punishable under ss.10, 13, 15 to 18, 18A, 18B, 19,
20, 23 and 38 of 1967 Act – Charges were framed against him on
29.01.2018 – Appellant has been in custody for a period of 8 years
– By impugned order, his application for bail was rejected by High
Court – On appeal, held: Appellant is charged with offences, some
of which are punishable with a minimum punishment of 10 years
and the sentence extending to imprisonment for life – The condition
in s.43D(5) of the Act of 1967 has been understood to be less
stringent than the provisions contained in Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Prosecution seeks to examine
as many as 109 witnesses of which only 6 witnesses have been fully
examined so far – In view of nature of the case against the appellant,
the evidence and long period of incarceration that he has already
undergone, appellant released on bail subject to such conditions
as shall be fixed by the trial court – Unlawful Activities (Prevention)
Act, 1967 – ss.10, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 18A, 18B, 19, 20, 23 and 38
Union of India v. K. A. Najeeb (2021) 3 SCC 713 –
relied on.
Case Law Reference
(2021) 3 SCC 713
relied on
Para 9
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No.605 of 2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 24.03.2021 of the High Court
of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous
Bail Application No.14646 of 2020.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
102
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 3 S.C.R.
Mohd. Irshad Hanif, Mujahid Ahmed, Rizwan Ahmed, Danish Sher
Khan, A. R.Siddiqui, Mohit Kumar, Advs. for the Appellant.
Ms. Pragati Neekhra, Adv. for the Respondent.
The following order of the Court was passed:
ORDER
Leave granted.
(1) By the impugned order, the appellant is denied bail which is
sought under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The
appellant was arrested on 08.05.2014 in connection with FIR 113/2014
of Police Station Pratapnagar, Jodhpur for offences punishable under
Sections 10, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 18A, 18B, 19, 20, 23 and 38 of the Unlawful
Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (in short ‘Act of 1967’).
(2) A chargesheet came to be filed against the appellant on
17.09.2014. Charges have been framed against the appellant on
29.01.2018. It is not in dispute that the appellant has been in custody for
a period of almost 8 years. As far as stage of the case is concerned,
examination of only 6 witnesses have been completed. The seventh
witness is being examined. Ms. Pragati Neekra, learned counsel for the
State, does not dispute the fact that there are 109 witnesses. Without
much dispute, it can be found that the appellant who is an undertrial
prisoner, has already undergone a long period of incarceration.
(3) This Court issued notice in this matter on 29.09.2021. Thereafter
the matter came up on 26.11.2021 wherein the complaint of the appellant
that out of 180 witnesses cited by the prosecution,
evidence of not even
a single witness was complete was noted; the counsel for the State, was
asked to get instructions and also to submit before the Court as to the
approximate time within which the trial can be concluded.
(4) Thereafter this Court passed the following order on 03.12.2021:
“The petitioner is in custody since the last 7 years. Learned
counsel for the State submits that there are a total of 109 witnesses
for prosecution. It is common case that the evidence of even the
first witness is not yet completely recorded. In the circumstances,
we think it fit to call for a report from the Additional District and
Sessions Judge, No. 3, Jodhpur City, as to within what time the
trial in the case can be concluded. Accordingly, we direct that
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
103
Additional District and Sessions Judge, No. 3, Jodhpur City, shall
send a report as to the earliest point of time when the trial can be
concluded. The report to be sent within a period of three weeks
from today.
List the case on 10th January, 2022.”
Pursuant to the said order, a report was filed by the Judge
concerned wherein it was indicated that there is quite a probability of
taking at least 2 to 3 years in disposal of the instant case. The said report
is dated 20.12.2021.
(5) Thereafter, again, this matter was taken up on 19.01.2022. On
the said date, the following order was passed:
“After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we are
of the view that interest of justice requires that the State places
an affidavit before us indicating the position of the other accused
with charges against them and the difference, if any, between the
petitioner and the other accused. The affidavit shall also indicate
about the need for any measures to protect the witnesses who
will depose in the trial. The affidavit shall be file on or before
24.01.2022.
The petitioner will be free to file affidavit-in-reply to the
affidavit which we have ordered the State to file.
List the matter on 25.01.2022.
(6) Still further, the following order passed on 04.02.2022:
“By the impugned order, the High Court has rejected the
application for bail maintained by the petitioner under the provisions
of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.
We have heard learned counsel for
the petitioner and also
the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State.
The petitioner has been in custody since 08.05.2014, that is
almost for 8 years. Based on an order passed by this Court as to
the possibility of an early disposal of the trial itself, the report
indicates that even after putting every effort in the matter and
keeping in view the number of witnesses, accused persons,
Advocates, cross examination by them and the number of cases
pending in the Court, there is probability of at least 2-3 years for
the disposal in the case.
JAHIR HAK v. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
104
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 3 S.C.R.
In the affidavit filed by the State before this Court by way
of compliance with the order passed by this Court asking the
respondent to indicate about the need for any measures to protect
the witnesses who would depose in trial, it has been stated that a
total of 110 witnesses shall be deposing during trial out of which,
the statements of three prosecution witnesses have already been
recorded. It is further stated that the concerned official had
contacted the private witnesses out of whom three witnesses have
apprehended danger to their lives to depose against the accused
during trial.
Learned counsel for the petitioner would point out that such
an apprehension has not been raised during the past eight years
and it is frivolous and there is no threat from the petitioner. This is
besides reiterating that there is no material against the petitioner
whereas the learned counsel for the State would, on her part,
reiterate that it is a matter where very serious offences are alleged
and is not a case where bail may be granted to the petitioner. She
further would point out that the trial is progressing and the State is
also taking effective steps for an early disposal of the matter.
We are of the view that in the facts of this case, when the
petitioner has already spent nearly 8 years in custody, the
appropriate order to pass would be to first direct the examination
of the three witnesses who have raised concerns about threat
to
their lives from the accused and the matter should receive attention
of this Court after their evidence is adduced. However, these
witnesses must be examined on a priority basis. In such
circumstances, we pass the following order:
There will be a direction that the respondent-State shall
ensure that these witnesses are examined on priority basis and
that, at any rate, the examination is completed within a maximum
period of two months from today.
List this case for further consideration on 11.04.2022.
The State will ensure that the deposition of the witnesses in
question shall be placed before this Court after translation on or
before 08.04.2022.”
Today the depositions of witnesses mentioned in the order dated
04.02.2022 have been placed before the Court.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
105
(7) The learned counsel for the appellant would point out that
witness named Devendra Patel has been declared hostile. As far as the
other two witness - Hemant and Pappuram examined on behalf of the
prosecution are concerned, it is pointed out by the learned counsel for
the appellant that there is nothing in the deposition of the said witnesses
which implicates the appellant. This aspect, as such, is not disputed by
the learned counsel for the State. No doubt, the learned counsel for the
State does point out that in the nature of the case set up against the
appellant, there would be further evidence which may unfold.
(8) In this regard, the basis of the case against the appellant appears
to be largely the fact that he was found to be in touch with one of the
accused and which is sought to be made good by conversations which
the appellant is alleged to have engaged in with that accused on 31
occasions, who is a co-villager. According to the respondent, the said
accused is the head of a sleeper cell module of Indian Mujahideen.
(9) We bear in mind the judgment of this Court reported in Union
of India v. K. A. Najeeb (2021) (3) SCC 713. Therein, the following
observations cannot be overlooked:
“12. Even in the case of special legislations like the Terrorist and
Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 or the Narcotic Drugs
and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“the NDPS Act”) which
too have somewhat rigorous conditions for grant of bail, this Court
in
Paramjit Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi) [Paramjit Singh v.
State (NCT of Delhi), (1999) 9 SCC 252 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 1156]
, Babba v. State of Maharashtra [Babba v. State of
Maharashtra, (2005) 11 SCC 569 : (2006) 2 SCC (Cri) 118] and
Umarmia v. State of Gujarat [Umarmia v. State of Gujarat,
(2017) 2 SCC 731 : (2017) 2 SCC (Cri) 114] enlarged the accused
on bail when they had been in jail for an extended period of time
with little possibility of early completion of trial. The constitutionality
of harsh conditions for bail in such special enactments, has thus
been primarily justified on the touchstone of speedy trials to ensure
the protection of innocent civilians.
19. Yet another reason which persuades us to enlarge the
respondent on bail is that Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA is
comparatively less stringent than Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
Unlike the NDPS Act where the competent court needs to be
satisfied that prima facie the accused is not guilty and that he is
JAHIR HAK v. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
106
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 3 S.C.R.
unlikely to commit another offence while on bail; there is no such
precondition under UAPA. Instead, Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA
merely provides another possible ground for the competent court
to refuse bail, in addition to the well-settled considerations like
gravity of the offence, possibility of tampering with evidence,
influencing the witnesses or chance of the accused evading the
trial by absconsion, etc.”
(10) No doubt, in the said case, as pointed out by the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the State, the Court was dealing with an
order passed by the High Court granting bail, whereas, in this case, the
converse is true, that is, the impugned order is one rejecting the application
for bail. The fact remains that the appellant has been in custody as an
undertrial prisoner for a period of nearly 8 years already. The appellant,
it may be noted, is charged with offences, some of which are punishable
with a minimum punishment of 10 years and the sentence may extend to
imprisonment for life. Learned counsel for the appellant also points out
that one of the co-accused namely Shri Aadil Ansari has been released
on bail on 30.09.2020 by this Court. No doubt, in this regard, we keep in
mind the submission of the State that the role attributed to the said
accused is different.
(11) The condition in Section 43D(5) of the Act of 1967 has been
understood to be less stringent than the provisions contained in Narcotic
Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, as already noticed by
us. We would think that in the nature of the case against the appellant,
the evidence which has already unfolded and above all, the long period
of incarceration that the appellant has already undergone, time has arrived
when the appellant be enlarged on bail. We bear in mind the fact that the
prosecution seeks to examine as many as 109 witnesses of which only 6
witnesses have been fully examined so far. Accordingly, we allow the
appeal, set aside the impugned order and direct that the appellant shall
be released on bail subject to such conditions as shall be fixed by the trial
Court.
Needless to say, the observations which have been made in this
order are for the purpose of deciding the application for bail and the
Court will, undoubtedly, decide upon the fate of the appellant in the trial
on the basis of the evidence and in accordance with law.
Devika Gujral
Appeal allowed.