“There is no likelihood of the early conclusion of the trial,” Supreme Court Grants Bail to a UAPA Accused.



Share on:

Recently, the Supreme Court (SC) of India was hearing a petition filed by one Mukesh Salam, charged with offences under Sections 10, 13, 17, 38(1)(2), 40, 22-A & 22-C of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967 (UAPA), Section 8(2)(3)(5) of the Chhattisgarh Vishesh Jan Surksha Adhiniyam, 2005; and Sections 120B, 201, & 149/34 of the Indian Penal Code, seeking bail. The petitioner has been denied bail by the Division Bench of the Chhattisgarh High Court on February 16, 2024. Aggrieved by the decision, he approached the Supreme Court seeking bail. The top Court bench of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra granted bail to him taking into account that he has been under custody since May 06, 2020, and there was no likelihood of the early conclusion of the trial. 

The bench also noted that “12 out of 14 persons who are arraigned as accused have been granted bail either by the order of the High Court…” After hearing the matter, the SC ordered, “Bearing in mind the above circumstances and the nature of the alleged case, we are of the considered view that the continued detention of the petitioner would not subserve the ends of justice. There is no likelihood of the early conclusion of the trial. The petitioner is in custody since 6 May 2020. We accordingly order and direct that the petitioner be released on bail, subject to such terms and conditions as may be imposed by the Special Judge (NIA Act), Kanker, in connection with FIR…” Moreover, the top court said that among the conditions that the Special Judge may impose, the following 2 conditions should also be part of the order:

  • “The petitioner shall report to the nearest police station once every week; and
  • The petitioner shall remain present before the trial Judge on every date of the trial without fail, unless his presence is dispensed with by the trial Court, and shall cooperate in the early conclusion of the trial.”