‘Bail is rule & jail an exception applies even to offences under special statutes like PMLA’

New Delhi: In a landmark decision on Tuesday, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the legal principle that “bail is the rule and jail is an exception,” even in cases involving special statutes like the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). The ruling came as the court granted bail to a man accused of harbouring suspected terrorists.

Justices Abhay S Oka and Augustine George Masih, comprising the bench that heard the case, emphasised that courts should not hesitate to grant bail when a case for it has been made, regardless of the severity of the prosecution’s allegations. “The duty of the Courts is to consider the case for grant of bail in accordance with the law,” the bench stated.

The court clarified that this principle applies even in cases involving stringent bail conditions, such as those under the UAPA. In such instances, the rule remains applicable with the modification that bail can be granted if the statutory conditions are met.

The justices stressed the importance of upholding this principle, warning that denying bail in deserving cases would violate the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution, which protects the right to life and personal liberty.

This significant verdict came in the case of Jalaluddin Khan, a retired police constable accused under the UAPA for allegedly renting out the upper floor of his house to members of the banned Popular Front of India (PFI). The National Investigation Agency (NIA) had claimed that Khan’s property was used to impart training in acts of violence as part of a larger conspiracy to carry out terrorist activities.

The NIA’s charges included allegations of a planned disturbance during Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to Bihar in 2022. However, the Supreme Court found no evidence in the chargesheet to suggest that Khan had participated in or committed any unlawful activities as defined by the UAPA.

The court noted that even if the co-accused were involved in terrorist acts or planning, there was no material evidence linking Khan to the conspiracy. “There is no material produced on record to show that the appellant advocated, abetted, advised, or incited the commission of terrorist acts or any preparatory activity,” the bench observed.

Furthermore, the court pointed out that it was Khan’s son who had negotiated the rental agreement with the accused individuals. The justices found no prima facie evidence that Khan knowingly facilitated terrorist acts by renting out the property. They also noted the absence of any allegations in the chargesheet regarding Khan’s involvement in organising terrorist training camps or membership in any terrorist organisation.