| |
CDJ 2026 SC 346
|
| Court : Supreme Court of India |
| Case No : Criminal Appeal No. of 2026 (@ SLP(Crl.) No. 18423 of 2025) |
| Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. SUNDRESH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH |
| Parties : Sudhir Tripathi & Another Versus Union of India |
| Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: Advocates. For the Respondent: Advocates. |
| Date of Judgment : 09-01-2026 |
| Head Note :- |
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 - Sections 18, 28 and 39 -
|
| Summary :- |
1. Statutes / Acts / Rules Mentioned:
- Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967
- Indian Penal Code, 1860
- Arms Act, 1959
- Sections 18, 28 and 39 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967
- Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
- Sections 25 and 29 of the Arms Act, 1959
2. Catch Words:
- Bail
- Appeal
- Sarpanch
- UPI payments
- Special NIA Case
3. Summary:
The appeal challenges the order denying bail to appellant No.1, who is charged under the UAPA, IPC and Arms Act for alleged receipt of money via UPI and facilitation of a revolver purchase while serving as Sarpanch. The court notes the specific overt act, the period of incarceration already undergone, and his public office tenure. Considering these factors, the court sets aside the impugned order and grants bail with conditions to be imposed by the trial court. The appeal is consequently allowed, and any pending applications are disposed of.
4. Conclusion:
Appeal Allowed |
| Judgment :- |
|
1. Leave granted.
2. We have heard the learned senior counsel, appearing for the appellants, and the learned Additional Solicitor General, appearing for the respondent.
3. The appellant No.1 has been arraigned as an accused, in Special NIA Case No.07/2024, by the Special Judge NIA/Scheduled Crime Bastar, Place Jagadalpur (C.G.), in connection with FIR No.01/2023, registered at Police Station Bhairamgarh. Charges have been framed, against appellant No.1, for the offences punishable under Sections 18, 28 and 39 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 25 and 29 of the Arms Act, 1959.
4. It is not in dispute that appellant No.1 has served as a Sarpanch for nearly 3 years. Even as per the prosecution, the case against appellant No.1 is that he had received money through UPI payments and facilitated the purchase of a revolver.
5. Considering the specific overt act attributed against him, coupled with the period of incarceration undergone by appellant No.1, along with the fact that he was, indeed, serving as a Sarpanch for nearly 3 years, we are inclined to set aside the impugned order and grant bail to appellant No.1.
6. Accordingly, the impugned order stands set aside and appellant No.1 is granted bail, subject to the terms and conditions that may be imposed by the concerned Trial Court.
7. The appeal is allowed, accordingly.
8. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
|
| |
