Nagpur: Observing that even preparing for a terror act is punishable with life imprisonment under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, the Nagpur Bench of Bombay high court last week dismissed the bail appeal of a Gadchiroli health worker accused of assisting banned Maoist groups. He was accused of allegedly procuring material used for manufacturing explosives from popular e-commerce websites and maintaining contact with a Maoist commander since 2019.Pointing out that the petitioner’s activities are against the sovereignty of the state and against the interests of justice, a division bench of Justices Urmila Joshi-Phalke and Nivedita Mehta upheld the June 9, 2023, order of the additional Gadchiroli sessions court rejecting Pawankumar Uike’s bail plea in a crime registered at Repanpalli police station.
CJP Jantar Mantar Protest Updates
The case invokes sections of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), IPC, the Indian Explosives Act and the Maharashtra Police Act.Uike, employed at the Primary Health Centre in Kamlapur in Aheri taluka, was arrested on July 28, 2022. The prosecution said police personnel on ambush duty during the period of ‘Maoists’ Martyr Week’ intercepted Uike and two others in a forest area and recovered banners and pamphlets allegedly promoting Maoist activities.Investigators later claimed that a memory card, mobile phone, laptop, and other electronic material were recovered on Uike’s disclosure. The state said forensic examination of mirror images of the devices revealed anti-govt literature and communication with senior Maoist commanders.Opposing the bail, the prosecution, through additional public prosecutor MJ Khan, alleged that he had monetary links with Maoist operatives, including an absconding commander identified as Vikas.The petitioner argued that he was in custody for nearly four years, and the trial had made little progress. His right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution was violated, the petitioner argued.The court rejected these arguments, noting that Uike was granted temporary bail on Oct 19, 2024, but did not surrender on Oct 24 as directed and appeared only on Jan 2, 2025. “It is apparent that there is a delay in framing the charge due to his absence,” the bench said.Citing Supreme Court rulings on bail under the UAPA, the judges said courts must assess whether the accusations are prima facie true before applying ordinary bail principles. They also relied on recent Supreme Court observations that “delay does not operate as a trump card that automatically displaces statutory restraint” in cases involving national security.The judges held that Uike’s failure to surrender after temporary bail created a flight risk and could affect witnesses. “Liberty must be given away when it threatens the collective interests of the society,” the bench observed.
