The Bombay HC recently comprising of a bench of Justice SS Shinde and Justice Manish Pitale while dealing with a matter related to the provision for considering a bail application for those offences under UAPA observed that there must be sufficient reasons for denying a bail application and that must include prima facie evidence that proves beyond reasonable doubt the involvement of the accused in a crime. (Vikram Vinay Bhave v. State of Maharashtra & Other)
The High Court held that, according to the UAPA Act, an accused shall not be released on bail if the Court is of the opinion that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation is prima facie true. In this particular case, with respect to the nature of allegations and the extent to which CBI has investigated the matter, there were no strong grounds on which the bail application can be rejected. Thus, the bail applications of the appellant were allowed with some conditions imposed.
The bench noted, “the emphasis placed by respondent CBI solely on the said confessional statement of co-accused Sharad Kalaskar under the KCOC Act, is prima facie misplaced and it is also clear that the Sessions Court could not have placed emphasis on the said confessional statement to conclude that the accusation made against the appellant concerning the incident in question could be said to be prima facie true. Therefore, the first reason stated in the impugned orders passed by the Sessions Court in the present case while rejecting the bail applications appears to be based on weak material i.e. the said confessional statement.”