The Supreme Court has demanded an explanation from the Bihar Police and the Gaya trial court after discovering that an accused charged under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) was not produced before the trial court for nearly fourteen months. A bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu termed the development undesirable and expressed surprise that the trial court did not require the production of the accused during the extended period.
The issue arose during the hearing of a bail petition challenging the Patna High Court's refusal to grant bail. The petitioner is accused of being an active member of a Naxalite group, with the prosecution alleging the recovery of incriminating articles during a raid. The charges involve offences under the UAPA, the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the Explosives Act, and the Arms Act.
Why Did The Supreme Court Seek Reports From The Investigating Officer And The Trial Court?
The bench directed the investigating officer to submit a report indicating the real reason for the non-production of the accused before the trial court. Simultaneously, the Registrar General of the Patna High Court was ordered to obtain a report from the Gaya trial court regarding the failure to insist on the accused's production. Both reports must be placed before the Supreme Court registry in a sealed cover by November 15, 2026.
The Court's intervention was prompted by the State's own counter-affidavit, which acknowledged that charges could not be framed solely because the accused had not been produced before the trial court. The petitioner had surrendered on May 10, 2025, and a supplementary charge sheet was filed on July 29, 2025. However, the State's counsel, Mr. Akshay Amritanshu, was unable to explain why the accused could not be produced during this period or why charges had not been framed till date.
The bench recorded its astonishment at the situation, noting that if the affidavit was correct, it was surprising that the trial court had also not required the petitioner to be produced before it. The Court observed that the non-production had directly contributed to the non-framing of charges, effectively stalling the trial process.
What Was The Supreme Court's Order On Interim Bail?
After being informed that the main accused in the case had been granted bail, the bench noted that the petitioner's case stood on a better footing than that of the main accused. Consequently, the Court directed the release of the petitioner on interim bail. The matter has been listed for further hearing on November 17, 2026.
Event | Date |
|---|---|
Petitioner surrendered | May 10, 2025 |
Supplementary charge sheet filed | July 29, 2025 |
Reports due before Supreme Court | November 15, 2026 |
Next date of hearing | November 17, 2026 |
The bench highlighted the procedural lapse where the State's affidavit admitted the delay was attributable to the non-production of the accused from jail. The Court emphasised that such inaction by both the prosecution and the trial court undermines the administration of justice, particularly in cases involving stringent anti-terror legislation like the UAPA where timely framing of charges is critical.
The petitioner was represented by Ms. Fauzia Shakil, Ms. Tanya Srivastava (AOR), Mr. Kushank Mittal, Mr. Anmol Kheta, and Mr. Dinesh Kumar. The State of Bihar was represented by Mr. Akshay Amritanshu (AOR), Mr. Sarthak Srivastava, and Mr. Utkarsh Rai.