Court grants appellant bail, finding accusations insufficient under UAPA sections. Emphasizes right to speedy trial.

Asif Iqbal Tanha Versus State of NCT of Delhi,

Asif Iqbal Tanha Versus State of NCT of Delhi, - TMI Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the appellant's detention under the UAPA.
2. Applicability of stringent bail conditions under UAPA.
3. Right to protest under the Constitution.
4. Prima facie case against the appellant under UAPA.
5. General principles of bail.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the appellant's detention under the UAPA:
The appellant, a 25-year-old student, was arrested under FIR No. 59/2020 for various offences, including those under the UAPA. The appellant challenged the denial of bail by the Special Court. The court examined whether the allegations made against the appellant under sections 15, 17, and 18 of the UAPA were prima facie true. The court noted that the essential aim of the activities attributed to the appellant was to orchestrate a protest against the CAA, perceived as discriminatory against the Muslim community. However, the court found no specific allegations that the appellant's actions amounted to a "terrorist act" as defined under the UAPA.

2. Applicability of stringent bail conditions under UAPA:
The court analyzed section 43D(5) of the UAPA, which imposes stringent conditions for granting bail. It noted that the burden to demonstrate the prima facie veracity of the allegations lies with the prosecution. The court cited the Supreme Court's decision in *National Investigation Agency vs. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali*, emphasizing that the court must not delve into the merits of the evidence at the bail stage. The court found that the State's attempt to show that the accusations against the appellant were prima facie true did not commend itself for acceptance.

3. Right to protest under the Constitution:
The court discussed the constitutionally guaranteed right to protest under Article 19(1)(b) of the Constitution, which allows for peaceful assembly. It cited the Supreme Court's observations in *Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan vs. Union of India and Anr.*, which highlighted that legitimate dissent is a feature of democracy. The court noted that the protest in question was not banned or outlawed and was monitored by law enforcement agencies. The court found no evidence that the appellant's involvement in the protest crossed into the realm of a "terrorist act" under the UAPA.

4. Prima facie case against the appellant under UAPA:
The court examined the specific allegations against the appellant, such as providing a SIM card to a co-accused and participating in meetings to organize the protest. The court found that these actions did not constitute a "terrorist act" under section 15 of the UAPA. The court emphasized that the definition of "terrorist act" must be construed narrowly and should not be applied casually to ordinary criminal acts.

5. General principles of bail:
The court referred to the general principles of bail, emphasizing that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused at trial and not to punish them pre-trial. The court cited the Supreme Court's decisions in *Sanjay Chandra vs. CBI* and *P. Chidambaram vs. CBI*, which highlighted that the seriousness of the charge alone cannot justify denial of bail. The court found no material or basis to suspect that the appellant would tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the accusations against the appellant did not make out a prima facie case under sections 15, 17, or 18 of the UAPA. The stringent conditions for bail under section 43D(5) of the UAPA were not applicable. The court allowed the appeal and granted the appellant bail, subject to certain conditions, emphasizing that the appellant's right to a speedy trial and preparation of defense must be protected.