ABDUL HAQ Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the applicant -appellant and learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Shri K.N. Bajpai, learned A.G.A.

(2.) WE have gone through the affidavit filed in support of application under Section 5 of Limitation Act. The basis ground taken by the applicant -appellant for condonation of six days delay is that he is a poor person and was out of his native place i.e. District Meerut, village Kaili, P.S. Daurala for two months to Delhi in order to win bread and butter for his family. He has a family. In response to that the prosecution has come out in para -5 of the counter -affidavit that enquiry revealed that the applicant never went to Delhi. Where he did work for the said period was not worked out. Be that as it may. The failure of the investigating agency to work out where the labour work was done during this period is not material for our consideration. The delay is only of six days. It is a matter, which is to be taken into consideration. We are convinced that the reason given by the applicant for the delay cannot be termed to be improper or illegal in any manner. We intend to grant liberty to this applicant.

(3.) SINCE earlier there was no such re -considerative body to any hazardous incarceration under the provisions of the impugned Act of any person. The shortcoming is intended to be met by providing for an appeal. The offences created by this Act are serious and very heinous in nature. The acts encompassed by the enactment border sedation. Acts causing internal insecurity, causing dismemberment of any part, disenchantment amongst the population against any popular Government and disaffection are to be taken care of by the act. The country thereby runs through a perpetual risk to its unity and security. These person resort to violence by taking to arms. It also endangers peace and progress. The Parliament was conscious of its abuse by the States also. It was also conscious of the fact that there are prospects of false implication under this enactment of those who are not conducive to any Government or any member of its. Initially until the pronouncement of the Apex Court Judgment a person was necessarily to be detained once the charge under the provision of this enactment are levelled against him for a minimum period of 12 months before any Court, the Special Court or appellate Court could have entertained their bail application or appeal in its rejection. Therefore, in its wisdom Parliament had inducted into the enactment Section 34 providing wider power to the appellate Court than whatever provided under the similar provisions in the Code of Criminal Procedure regarding bail. This is a new remedy provided to a person accused under this Act. No such appeal is provided against the order of accepting or rejecting bail in any other enanctment though the powers granted by the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 are widest possible. Virtually the enactment i.e. Cr. P.C. has made the Courts especially the Sessions Courts and High Courts sole repository without any serious fetter but for some restrictions imposed by Section 437 Cr. P.C. apart from it guiding factors and principles defined by the Apex Court in 1962 SC 235.