Lucknow | The Allahabad High Court has sought a comprehensive report from a special court here explaining why the trial in a UAPA case against two suspected PFI members has failed to make progress despite repeated directions for its expeditious conclusion.
A Lucknow bench of justices Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra observed that the NIA/ATS court had not shown "proper indulgence" in complying with the high court's earlier orders and noted that there appeared to be virtually no progress in the proceedings.
The bench said that in such circumstances, the accused's fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution required consideration.
Kerala natives Ansad Badruddin and Firoz Khan have been in judicial custody since February 17, 2021, in the case registered under provisions of the Indian Penal Code, the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, the Explosive Substances Act and the Arms Act.
Investigators alleged that Ansad and Firoz, said to be linked to the now-banned Popular Front of India (PFI), had travelled to Uttar Pradesh to target leaders and members of Hindu organisations and carry out bomb blasts at religious gatherings to spread fear.
The ATS claimed to have recovered firearms, explosives, detonators and other incriminating material from their possession.
The high court had on December 7, 2022 directed the trial court to conclude the proceedings expeditiously, preferably within a year.
In January 2024, it further directed that prosecution witnesses be cross-examined immediately after their examination-in-chief instead of postponing cross-examination until all prosecution witnesses had been examined.
While hearing a fresh bail plea filed by the accused after the trial remained pending, the bench noted that the prosecution has cited 18 witnesses, but the cross-examination of the FIR informant, remains incomplete despite coercive measures and an opportunity to record evidence through video conferencing.
The high court has directed the trial judge to explain why the trial was not concluded in accordance with its earlier orders and why effective steps were not taken to comply with its January 2024 directions.
The matter has been posted for further hearing on August 10.
