Case:- Union of India Vs K.A Najeeb Court:- Supreme court
Year:- 2021 the decision was made
Date of Judgment:- 1 February 2021
Bench:- Justice N.V Ramana, Justice Surya Kant, and Justice Aniruddha Bose
Petitioner:- Union of India
Respondent:- K.A. Najeeb
Authored by:- Raj Ubed
Introduction:-
In 2010,the defendant, K.A. Najeeb, affiliated with a fundamentalist organization, was accused of facilitating a physical violence on teacher Joseph in Thodupuzha, Kerala. In 2015, The (N.I.A) take into custody of respondent under the (UAPA). The NIA challenged the apex court of Kerala that is High Court’s 2019 bail judgment, citing trial delays.
After many apples in the special court of NIA but refused bail under U.A.P.A regulations, they submitted Special Leave Petition (SLP) in the apex court of India to challenge the judgement of High Court of kerala. The Investigation Agency’s position was based on under the Section of U.A.P.A Section 43D(5), which prohibits Bail is not given under the Act. The apex court of India rejected N.I.A request, citing the respondents’ constitutional right in Article 21 right to a speedy trial. However, the Court of justice did not define a basic threshold for similar instances in the future.
The bench of Justices of apex court is Surya Kant, Aniruddha Bose and NV Ramana maintained power of fundamental courts to give bail to people facing prosecution or detention under the severe UAPA. The court’s finding in this case raises further doubts concerning UAPA and bail law in general. This essay will provide an outline of UAPA and Section 43D(5), but will focus on analyzing a specific Instance.
This case analysis utilizes Prof. Ujjwal Kumar Singh’s idea of “ordinary and extraordinary laws” to discuss the “overlapping” of ordinary and extraordinary laws. Critics argue that Investigative agencies are given inordinate authority to support convictions and create a “suspect community.” This enhances the state’s coercive powers.
Case facts
The respondent is active participant of the terrorist group name as (PFI) popular front of India, the respondent was arrested on doubt of being a main conspirator in a pre-planned attack on victim of Newman college in Thodupuzha. The injured person included an insensitive query about a certain faith on a question paper. The responder and other activist of PFI, an fundamentalist Islamic organization, attacked the victim in retaliation for religious sentiments hurts. In year 2010 July 4, the victim was begin an assault by a gang carrying a common object while walking home with his mother and sister about 8 a.m. PFI activist used choppers, cutting tools, and a hatchet to halt the injured person vehicle, detain, and PFI activist cut off his right palm. Homemade Bombs were thrown at passers- by to instill fear and prevent all people from helping the injured person. The injured person wife eventually submit an official complaint opposed to culprits.
A thorough interrogation is disclosed that being an assault was the type of a larger operation involving meticulous preparation, many not successful, and they started to help of weapons like lethal. As a result, was topic to U.A.P.A prohibitions. Despite being majority of the respondent’s co-Conspirators being convicted by the NIA special court, the accused was designated as an absconder. The two to eight years punishment was given to co- assused of hard imprisonment in all. After being apprehended by the NIA, Najeeb was held in judicial custody for nearly five years without a trial or decision.
The respondent appeal for bail six times between 2015 to 2019 claiming it was comparable to other co-accused who had been acquitted or granted bail. The respondent’s pleas were denied due to their alleged knowledge and involvement in the incident. Due to this, he did not qualify under 43D (5) section for bail under U.A.P.A, which allows judges to deny bail is founded on reasonable doubt and does not apply to accused individuals. The Respondent appealed to the HC of kerala for the 3rd time against the N.I.A Court denial of bail.
In a controversial verdict, the HC allow bail to the respondent, finding they could not be imprisoned for a lengthy amount of time. It was improbable that the trial would start soon and significant misery if it did not. The court drape the bail decision, prompting N.I.A to submit an request, arguing that the High Court made an error.
Legal issues
1. Can the statutory requirements under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA be removed due to a violation of Article 21?
2. In cases where the suspect is presumed guilty, is the court required to refuse bail?
3. Is it possible to contest the court’s bail ruling without any particular justification?
Arguments
Argument by Appellant
The appellant contended that the bail given to the respondent in this particular case was faulty because it did not comply with UAPA Section 43(D)(5). The attorney emphasized that in cases when the accused is presumed guilty, the courts are required to deny bail. In the current case, it was further argued that the respondent’s years-long fugitive status made it more logical for the courts to deny bail.
Finally, in response to the trial’s postponement, the attorney in this instance made the claim that NIA had submitted a second affidavit to question 276 witnesses.
Argument by Respondent The majority of the co-accused have either been found not guilty or have received sentences of no more than eight years in prison, as the respondent’s attorney pointed out. In addition to the previously indicated problem, the respondent had already served more than five years in jail, which is against the Constitution’s Article III guarantees of equal access to justice and a speedy trial. Additionally, the respondent’s attorney made the case that the Supreme Court shouldn’t get involved unless there is an exceptional situation with the accused having been granted bail by the High Court.
Court Decision The Supreme Court concluded that even if the accused was deemed prima facie by the N.I.A. guilty, under U.A.P.A Section 43D(5) that permitted am refusal of bail. However, the conditions of many statute violate fundamental rights of accused violated, courts have the jurisdiction to grant bail. Based on the circumstances provided in this case, the apex court of India determined that convicted “right to a speedy trial” had been violated. However, it is unlikely that trial would be concluded soon. Under U.A.P.A Section 43(d)(5) simply rejects bail without any criteria to prevent the accused from committing another crime.
Critical Analysis
After the Act’s amendments, UAPA, a statute aimed at improving India’s criminal justice system, faced criticism for its arbitrary nature. 43(D)(5) Section of the U.A.P.A allows the N.I.A special court to refuse bail if necessary. This is being extensively investigated. In this case, neither the Act nor court opinions define the phrase “necessary.” As a answer, investigators may be misuse of this part. The culprit was denied bail by multiple times by the special court of N.I.A before being granted by the HC.
The reports of (NCRB) that is National Crime Records Bureau that only 2.2% of accused individuals arrested under the U.A.P.A are proven guilty by the court of law. Long-term detention of the accused may appear questionable. However, there is a clear link between extended custody and constitutional rights. The culprit fundamental rights has violated his rights by being imprisoned for more than 5 years accompanied by a chance to defend himself. The culprit was given bail after the apex court of India took note of the issue.
Conclusion
The Act of 1967 that is U.A.P.A aimed to decrease the burden on the justice system and help government to the combat terrorism. UAPA may have violated individual constitutional
rights during a national “emergency,” while also lowering terrorism. activities. To empower individuals, The administration should find a balance between strong rules and fundamental Rights.
References
Lawctopus, https://www.lawctopus.com/academike/case-uoi-v-najeeb/, (last visited on February 11 2025)
I pleaders, https://blog.ipleaders.in/status-uapa-undertrials-light-union-india-v-k-najeeb/, ( last visited on February 11 2025)
SSC online, https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2021/02/01/najeeb-ka-accused-of- Chopping-off-kerala-professors-palm-over-objectionable-question-gets-bail-read-why-
Supreme-court-upheld-bail-despite-finding-charges-against-him-a-serious-threat-to-soc/, (last visited on February 11 2025)
Legal Vidhiya, https://legalvidhiya.com/union-of-india-vs-k-a-najeeb/?amp=1, (last visited on February 11 2025)
Name:- Raj Ubed Class:- 1st year Course:- B.A LL.B
University:- Mumbai University
Topic:- Case Commentary (Union of India Vs K A Najeeb)