Rajasthan High Court Addresses “Default Bail” Under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA)

 

The Rajasthan High Court has recently considered and clarified important aspects of the so-called “default bail” in cases prosecuted under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA). The decision discusses the limits of an accused’s entitlement to statutory bail when major restrictions of the UAPA are engaged.

In the view of the Court, the concept of default bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) does not automatically apply in cases governed by the UAPA. Under UAPA, Sections such as 43-D(2) and 43-D(5) impose stringent conditions on granting bail: in particular, an accused is not entitled to bail if the court is satisfied that the accusations are “prima facie true”. The Rajasthan High Court reaffirmed that once the special court takes cognisance under the UAPA and the statutory bar becomes operational, the usual rule of default bail substantially contracts.

The Court held that simply because the charge-sheet is not filed, or the investigation takes longer than the standard timeframe, an accused cannot mechanically claim default bail if the UAPA provisions apply. The High Court observed that the legislature, in enacting the UAPA’s bail provisions, intended to treat offences it covers as matters of national security or organised unlawful activity, thereby limiting the scope of routine bail. Accordingly, default bail rights under Section 167(2) CrPC must be examined through the overlaying structure of UAPA’s special bail regime, and the grant of bail in such cases remains discretionary and condition-laden.

In applying its reasoning to the facts of the case before it, the Court found that the accused’s request for default bail was impermissible because the court was satisfied on the material that the prima facie case was made out under the UAPA. The High Court further observed that delaying investigation and trial in UAPA matters did not automatically entitle the accused to bail where the statutory bar remains common. The judgment emphasises that the interplay between domestic default-bail entitlements and specialised anti-terror legislation requires careful judicial calibration.

The outcome of the decision underlines that in UAPA cases: (a) default bail is not an automatic fallback simply due to procedural delay; (b) the special provisions for bail under the UAPA take precedence; and (c) the courts must perform a prima facie evaluation of the accusations before deciding on bail. Legislated delays, prolonged investigation or non-presentation of the charge-sheet alone cannot tilt the balance in favour of bail unless the statutory bar is shown to be inapplicable or absence of prima facie material is demonstrated.

In sum, the Rajasthan High Court’s ruling reinforces that while the right to personal liberty is fundamental, sub-legal frameworks like the UAPA narrow that entitlement in specific contexts. For litigants and practitioners, the decision is a reminder that statutory bail entitlements must be viewed in their complete legislative architecture rather than in isolation of the enabling statute.

WhatsApp Group Invite

Join WhatsApp Community