2023 (4) TMI 1399 - SC - Indian Laws

UAPA accused granted bail after four years as confessional statements inadmissible under Section 27 Evidence Act

Yedala Subba Rao and Ors. Versus Union of India (UOI)

The SC granted bail to accused persons charged under UAPA in connection with murder of two leaders by planting landmines. The court found that statements ... Seeking grant of bail - facilitating the offence of murder of the two leaders - allegation is that 45 Accused persons who belonged to the Communist Party of India (Maoist), a terrorist organisation notified in the first Schedule of the UAPA, stopped the convoy of vehicles of the leaders - Appellants planted landmines near the village where the programme was to be held - HELD THAT:- Section 27 of the Evidence Act is an exception to the general Rule Under Section 25 that a confession made by an Accused to a police officer is not admissible in evidence. The first condition for the applicability of Section 27 is that the information given by the Accused must lead to the discovery of the fact, which is the direct outcome of such information. Only such portion of the information given as is distinctly connected with the said discovery is admissible against the Accused - There was no discovery of any fact as a result of the information supplied by Accused No. 46. The same is the case with the other allegation that Accused No. 46 showed a Xerox shop where Accused No. 47 and one Kiran were allegedly standing on 23rd September 2018. Therefore, the statements of Accused No. 46 that he would show the medical shop and the Xerox shop may not be, prima facie, admissible Under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. Moreover, as noted in the order of the High Court granting bail to Accused No. 84, the said Kiran, who was allegedly standing with Accused No. 47 near the Xerox shop on 23rd September 2018 was already in custody from 18th September 2018 and he continued to be in custody even on 23rd September 2018. There was a recovery of landmine at the instance of Accused No. 46. It must be noted here that it is not the case of the prosecution that the recovery of landmine was at the instance of the Accused No. 47. The recovery Panchama (Annexure A-1) to IA No. 74099 of 2022 is styled as 'Mediators' Report and Seizure Panchnama'. It records that at about 4 pm on 13th October 2018, the mediators were present at Livitiputtu village with ASP Amitabh for preparing the Mediators' Report and Seizure Panchanama - Going by the 'Mediators' Report and Seizure Panchnama', the Appellants gave confessional statements immediately after the police caught hold of them even before their arrest was recorded. Therefore, prima facie, it creates a doubt about the genuineness of the statements. The material portion of the 'Mediators' Report and Seizure Panchnama' appears after the confessional statement of the Accused No. 46. Taking the material against the Appellants as it is and without considering the defence of the Appellants, it is unable to form an opinion that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusations against the Appellants of commission of offence under the UAPA are prime facie true. Hence, the embargo on the grant of bail under proviso to Sub-section (5) of Section 43D will not apply in this case. It is made clear that the findings recorded in this judgment are only prima facie observations recorded for the limited purposes of examining the case in the light of the proviso to Sub-section (5) of Section 43D of the UAPA. The trial shall be conducted uninfluenced by these observations. The Appellants are in custody for four and half years. The charge has not been framed and the prosecution proposes to examine more than 140 witnesses. Some of the Accused are absconding. Thus, there is no possibility of the trial commencing in the near future. Appeal allowed. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal issues considered in this judgment include:1. Whether the Appellants, Accused Nos. 46 and 47, are entitled to bail under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA), given the stringent provisions under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA.2. Whether the evidence presented against the Appellants, including the recovery of a landmine and the purchase of medicines, is sufficient to establish a prima facie case against them under the UAPA.3. Whether the prolonged incarceration of the Appellants without the commencement of trial violates their rights under Article 21 of the Constitution.ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS1. Entitlement to Bail under UAPARelevant legal framework and precedents: The primary legal provision under consideration is Section 43D(5) of the UAPA, which imposes stringent conditions for granting bail to individuals accused of offenses under the Act. The proviso to this section states that bail cannot be granted if there are reasonable grounds to believe that the accusations against the accused are prima facie true.Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court examined the material against the Appellants, including the chargesheet and additional affidavits, to determine if the accusations were prima facie true. The Court noted that the evidence against the Appellants, particularly the alleged recovery of a landmine and the purchase of medicines, did not establish a strong prima facie case.Application of law to facts: The Court applied the legal standard set by Section 43D(5) of the UAPA and concluded that the material against the Appellants did not provide reasonable grounds to believe that the accusations were prima facie true. Consequently, the embargo on granting bail under the UAPA did not apply.2. Sufficiency of Evidence Against the AppellantsKey evidence and findings: The evidence against Accused No. 46 included the alleged recovery of a landmine and the purchase of medicines. For Accused No. 47, the evidence included alleged possession of Maoist literature and communication with co-accused.Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court found that the recovery of the landmine was not convincingly linked to Accused No. 46, as there was no admissible confessional statement leading to its discovery. Similarly, the purchase of medicines was not connected to the incident, as it occurred months before the event. For Accused No. 47, the possession of literature and communication with co-accused did not establish a strong prima facie case.Treatment of competing arguments: The Court considered the Respondent's argument that the evidence indicated involvement in the conspiracy. However, it found the evidence insufficient to meet the threshold required under the UAPA for denying bail.3. Violation of Article 21 Due to Prolonged IncarcerationRelevant legal framework and precedents: Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, which includes the right to a speedy trial.Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court noted that the Appellants had been in custody for over four years without the commencement of trial, which involved over 140 witnesses. Given the delay and the number of witnesses, the Court found that continued incarceration would violate the Appellants' rights under Article 21.SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSPreserve verbatim quotes of crucial legal reasoning: 'We are unable to form an opinion that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusations against the Appellants of commission of offence under the UAPA are prime facie true.'Core principles established: The Court emphasized that for the denial of bail under the UAPA, the prosecution must present evidence that provides reasonable grounds for believing the accusations are prima facie true. Mere allegations or weak evidence do not meet this standard.Final determinations on each issue: The Court concluded that the evidence against the Appellants was insufficient to deny bail under the UAPA. It directed the Special Judge to release the Appellants on bail with appropriate conditions, considering the prolonged incarceration and the lack of a prima facie case.