Why in News
A special court for NIA cases cannot cancel bail granted to a person, who was accused of attempting to establish Islamic rule in India through unlawful means.
A Division Bench of Justices S.S. Sundar and Sunder Mohan allowed an appeal and set aside a bail cancellation order passed by the special court, which had observed that Section 43D(7) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), 1967, does not permit grant of bail to a foreigner.
This section deals with the grant of bail to persons accused of offenses under the UAPA.
It states that no bail shall be granted to a person accused of an offense punishable under the
Not an Indian citizen and
Has entered the country unauthorizedly or illegally.
There is an exception to this rule: bail can still be granted in very exceptional circumstances and for reasons to be recorded in writing.
Key points to remember:
This section makes it difficult for foreign nationals who have entered India illegally to get bail if they are accused of offenses under the UAPA.
The burden of proof is on the accused to show why bail should be granted in their case.
The court has the discretion to decide whether or not to grant bail, even in exceptional circumstances.
Criticisms of Section 43D(7):
Some argue that the section is unfair to foreign nationals, as it denies them the right to bail without due process.
Others argue that the section is necessary to prevent terrorism and other serious offenses.
Impact of Section 43D(7):
Used by the Indian government to deny bail to a number of foreign nationals accused of terrorism and other offenses.
The section has been challenged in court on several occasions, but it has been upheld by the Supreme Court.
COMMENTS