- Hindi News
- National
- Supreme Court On UAPA Bail: Foreign Nationals Entitled To Relief | India
2 hours ago
- copy link
The Supreme Court said that a foreign citizen who has come to India in a legal and authorized manner can be granted bail under UAPA. The bench of Justice Arvind Kumar and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi upheld the decision of the Madras High Court.
The High Court had rejected the trial court’s order canceling the bail of a Sri Lankan citizen in a terrorism related case.
The Supreme Court said that the NIA could not prove that the accused Mohammad Rifas alias Mohammad Rigbas had entered India illegally or without permission. According to records, he had come to India on a valid visa and after the expiry of the visa, his stay became illegal.
The bench said that the conditions for granting bail to a foreign national under Section 43D(7) of UAPA are strict. Nevertheless, the prosecution could not prove the accused’s initial entry into India as illegal.
The court said that the NIA did not place any prima facie evidence on record which would prove the entry of the accused as unauthorized or illegal. The subsequent FIR also stated that Rifas had come to India through a valid visa.
After the expiry of the visa period, his stay in India became illegal. Necessary action has been initiated in this matter under the law related to foreign nationals.
“Based on the above discussion, we are of the view that this appeal is devoid of merit. Hence, it is dismissed,” the bench said.
The court upheld the order given in the criminal appeal of the Madras High Court on 12 December 2023.
Three conditions in Section 43D(7) of UAPA
The Supreme Court said that under Section 43D(7) of UAPA, the prosecution will have to prove three things to stop the grant of bail to a foreign national.
First, the accused must be accused of an offense punishable under UAPA. Second, the accused should not be an Indian citizen. Third, he has entered India in an unauthorized or illegal manner.
The court said that the second and third conditions are related to each other. The word ‘and’ has been used between them. Therefore, both conditions must be fulfilled to deny bail to a foreign national.
The court made it clear that merely the accused being a foreign citizen is not enough to stop bail. It will also have to be proved that he had initially entered India illegally or without permission.
What were the charges against Rifas
Rifas was arrested on charges of creating tension between religious communities and conspiring against the government.
NIA had alleged that he is a Sri Lankan citizen. He came to India in 2009 and stayed here even after his visa expired.
The investigating agency had also alleged that it obtained documents related to Indian identity. These included Voter ID card, Aadhar card and Ration card. He also got married.
The trial court had granted him default bail in July 2018 after the investigating agency did not file the charge sheet within the stipulated time.
After this, the Central Government demanded cancellation of the bail in the trial court. The government alleged that the accused had hidden his Sri Lankan citizenship. The trial court canceled his bail.
However, in December 2023, the Madras High Court canceled the trial court’s order. After this the Central Government approached the Supreme Court.
Comment also on the exception related to bail
The Supreme Court said that a foreign national can be granted bail under UAPA. However, this will not be possible only if there are “very extraordinary circumstances” and the reasons for the same are recorded in writing.
The court said that it is clear from this provision that an exception to bail can be made even if the three conditions mentioned above are fulfilled. But a very high standard has been set for this.
This criterion includes “very extraordinary circumstances” and “reasons to be recorded in writing”.
Power of court to cancel bail
On the power of the trial court to cancel bail, the bench said that courts have inherent power to cancel bail.
The court said that earlier it has made it clear that even if new circumstances do not arise, the courts can consider bail in some cases.
However, the use of such power must be based on sound logic. It should not be used arbitrarily, but with caution.
The bench said that the matter is related to the freedom of the individual. The prosecution cannot interfere with this freedom unless there is a risk of serious harm to a fair trial.
Source link
[ad_3]
