The Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled that courts cannot decline bail even under the special anti-terror law UAPA and other offences despite the stringent conditions, once the accused satisfies their prima facie innocence.

The ruling came as the court granted bail to Jalaluddin Khan, accused of harbouring alleged terror elements belonging to the Popular Front of India at Phulwarisharif in Patna.

The court granted bail to Khan on the ground that there was no evidence of him being linked to the activities of the PFI to whom he had let out his building, Ahmad Palace, on rent. Moreover, the outfit was not listed as a terrorist organisation by the Union government.

A bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih observed: “’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 the only modification that 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 (life and personal liberty) of our Constitution,” it said.

The court passed the judgment while allowing Khan’s appeal challenging the concurrent findings of a special trial court and Patna High Court dismissing his bail plea for alleged offences under Sections 121, 121A and 122 of the IPC and Sections 13, 18, 18A and 20 of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA), which deals with terrorist-related offences.

“We must mention here that the special court and the high court did not consider the material in the chargesheet objectively. Perhaps the focus was more on the activities of the PFI, and therefore, the appellant’s case could not be properly appreciated. When a case is made out for grant of bail, the courts should not have any hesitation in granting bail.

“The allegations of the prosecution may be very serious. But, the courts have to consider the case for grant of bail in accordance with the law.... Hence, the impugned orders are set aside. The appeal is allowed,” the court said.

“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 seven 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,” the top court said.

It added: “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.”

The bench said there was nothing in the chargesheet which shows that the appellant has taken part in or has committed unlawful activities as defined in the UAPA. There is no specific material to show that the appellant advocated, abetted, or incited commission of any unlawful activities.