The Court observed that existence of prima facie evidence against the accused would be of no avail if there was no justification for the arrest on the doctrine of clear and present danger to the society.
“We hold, that the investigating agency, investigating a case under the UAPA, has the unbridled authority to arrest or not to arrest under the provisions of the UAPA. However, upon arrest, the investigating agency would have to justify the arrest on the anvil of “clear and present danger” of the accused to the society at large, if enlarged on bail,” the Court ruled.
The division bench of Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Mohan Lal (who retired last week) added that if the investigating agency does not satisfy the Court in this regard and is unable to justify the arrest, the same would be violative of the fundamental rights of the accused.
It further said that the accused in such a scenario may be released on bail despite the stringent conditions for release of accused under UAPA. However, the Court also clarified that there can be no rule of thumb to assess whether the accused was a clear and present danger.
It must be seen in the backdrop of the specific facts and circumstances of each case, the Court added.
Source: Barandbench
