-
by Admin
07 May 2024 2:49 AM
Besides the statement of the co-accused, there does not appear to be any material to connect the appellant with the commission of the offence" — Justice Anupinder Singh Grewal. High Court of Punjab and Haryana, in the case of Lovepreet Singh @ Labhi @ Love vs. State of Punjab, granted regular bail to the appellant, who was charged under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), 1967. The appellant had been in custody for nearly two years. The court set aside the lower court’s decision, noting that there was insufficient evidence beyond the co-accused's statement to connect the appellant to the alleged offences.
Lovepreet Singh was implicated in a case registered under multiple sections of the UAPA, the Arms Act, and the Explosive Substances Act. The case stemmed from FIR No. 222, dated October 4, 2022, lodged at Police Station Baghapurana, Moga. The prosecution alleged that Lovepreet and other co-accused were involved in anti-national activities, including trafficking arms and ammunition from across the border. The appellant was allegedly part of a group planning to spread terror.
The appellant’s bail application was initially dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Moga, on June 20, 2023. Lovepreet Singh subsequently appealed, citing lack of prima facie evidence connecting him to the offence and arguing that his only involvement was based on the statement of a co-accused, Harpreet Singh @ Hira.
The primary legal question before the court was whether there were reasonable grounds to believe that the accusations against the appellant were prima facie true, as required under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA Act. The appellant argued that there was no evidence of his direct involvement in the crime, aside from the co-accused’s statement. His counsel emphasized that no physical evidence, such as arms or ammunition, had been recovered from him, nor was there any material indicating his active participation in the alleged conspiracy.
The State opposed the bail, maintaining that Lovepreet had been involved in the conspiracy by traveling ahead of the other accused on a scooter, allegedly serving as a lookout to warn them about police barricades. Despite this claim, no recovery was made from Lovepreet Singh, and his counsel stressed that there was no corroborating evidence, such as call details or any other form of contact with the co-accused, at the time of their arrest.
Justice Anupinder Singh Grewal, delivering the judgment, highlighted that the stringent provisions of the UAPA required careful scrutiny of evidence before denying bail. He noted that the appellant’s involvement was based solely on a statement from a co-accused, without any independent corroboration. Furthermore, no recovery had been made from Lovepreet Singh, and he had no prior criminal record before his involvement in this case.
The court ruled that the evidence against Lovepreet Singh was insufficient to justify his continued detention under the UAPA. Justice Grewal remarked that "there are no reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against the appellant is prima facie true." The court also took into account that the appellant had already been in custody for more than 1 year and 11 months, further strengthening the case for granting bail.
The court allowed the appeal, set aside the lower court’s order, and granted regular bail to Lovepreet Singh. He was ordered to be released on furnishing requisite bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court or Duty Magistrate concerned.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court granted regular bail to Lovepreet Singh, finding that there was no substantive evidence linking him to the alleged offences, apart from the statement of a co-accused. The court emphasized that the stringent provisions of the UAPA require thorough examination of evidence before denying bail, and in this case, the prosecution failed to provide adequate material to justify further detention.
Date of Decision:September 24, 2024.
Lovepreet Singh @ Labhi @ Love vs. State of Punjab
