Since this right to a speedy trial had been violated here, the apex court felt there was a need to grant the accused bail, and clarified that Section 43D(5) of the UAPA could not act as a bar on such a decision.
The court did take care to clarify that this ruling would not apply to situations where a person has just been arrested, thereby distinguishing such situations from those covered by the apex court’s 2019 Watali decision. “However, keeping in mind the length of the period spent by him in custody and the unlikelihood of the trial being completed anytime soon,” the judges felt there was no option but to grant bail.
This approach would balance the prosecution’s right to conduct a thorough trial and the accused’s rights, the judges held.
The Supreme Court also compared Section 43D(5) of the UAPA with the provision of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act which is used to deny bail in serious cases there. It found that the NDPS Act provision was…
