Therefore, on plain reading of the charge sheet, it is not possible to record a conclusion that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against the Appellant of commission of offences punishable under the UAPA is prima facie true. We have taken the charge sheet and the statement of witness Z as they are without conducting a mini-trial. Looking at what we have held earlier, it is impossible to record a prima facie finding that there were reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against the Appellant of commission of offences under the UAPA was prima facie true. No antecedents of the Appellant have been brought on record.
The upshot of the above discussion is that there was no reason to reject the bail application filed by the Appellant.
Before we part with the Judgment, we must mention here that the Special Court and the High Court did not consider the material in the charge sheet objectively. Perhaps the focus was more on the activities of PFI, and therefore, the Appellant’s case could not be properly appreciated. When a case is made out for a grant of bail, the Courts should not have any hesitation in granting bail. The allegations of the prosecution may be very serious. But, the duty of the Courts is to consider the case for grant of bail in accordance with the law. “Bail is the Rule and jail is an exception” is a settled law. Even in a case like the present case where there are stringent conditions for the grant of bail in the relevant statutes, the same Rule holds good with only modification that the bail can be granted if the conditions in the statute are satisfied. The Rule also means that once a case is made out for the grant of bail, the Court cannot decline to grant bail. If the Courts start denying bail in deserving cases, it will be a violation of the rights guaranteed Under Article 21 of our Constitution.
Hence, the impugned orders are set aside. The appeal is allowed. The Appellant is directed to be enlarged on bail on the terms and conditions as may be fixed by the Special Court. For that purpose, the Appellant shall be produced before the Special Court within a maximum of 7 days from today. The Special Court shall enlarge the Appellant on bail until the conclusion of the trial on appropriate terms and conditions. The Special Court shall hear the counsel for the Respondent before fixing the terms and conditions.
We make it clear that the tentative findings recorded in this judgment are only for considering the prayer for bail. The reasons are confined to the case of the Appellant. The same will have no bearing on the trial and cases of the co-Accused.
organisation, as per Section 2(m), a terrorist organisation means an organisation listed in the first Schedule or an organisation operating under the same name as the organisation was listed. The charge sheet does not mention the name of the terrorist organisation within the meaning of Section 2(m) of which the Appellant was a member. We find that the PFI is not a terrorist organisation, as is evident from the first schedule.