<p>The High Court on Monday directed the Registrar General to call for a report from the courts regarding the stages at which the cases under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) are pending. A division bench headed by Chief Justice Abhay Shreeniwas Oka was hearing a PIL filed seeking direction to constitute one more special court for NIA cases.</p>.<p>The petition filed by Vaseemuddin A, a resident of Jayanagar, contended that there has been delay in conduct of trial into the cases registered under the UAP Act. The petitioner said mostly the accused in cases under UAPA are from different parts of the country and since they are not able to meet their family members they suffer psychologically because of the delay in trial.</p>.<p>During the hearing, the court was informed that 56 cases under UAPA are pending in four different courts in Bengaluru Urban district. The Registrar General’s report dated December 10, 2020, said that all the 56 cases may be transferred and allotted to anyone court to exclusively deal with the cases instead of constituting an additional court. Meanwhile, P Prasanna Kumar, special public prosecutor for NIA, submitted that 15 cases handled by the agency are pending, while five cases are at different stages of investigation and charge sheet.</p>.<p>The court directed the Registrar General to call for a report from the courts regarding stages at which the cases are pending. “The Registrar General will also consider if re-distribution of cases among four courts is necessary. Along with the data regarding the present status of the cases, the Registrar General will place necessary material on record within one month from today,” the court said. </p>.<p>The petition said the investigating agency and the prosecution do not show interest in conducting a speedy trial. In spite of express provision under Section 309 of CrPC and Section 19 of the NIA Act, the day-to-day trial is not taking place.</p>.<p>The petition relied upon a Supreme Court constitution bench observed that the accused should not remain in jail longer than it is absolutely essential.</p>
<p>The High Court on Monday directed the Registrar General to call for a report from the courts regarding the stages at which the cases under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) are pending. A division bench headed by Chief Justice Abhay Shreeniwas Oka was hearing a PIL filed seeking direction to constitute one more special court for NIA cases.</p>.<p>The petition filed by Vaseemuddin A, a resident of Jayanagar, contended that there has been delay in conduct of trial into the cases registered under the UAP Act. The petitioner said mostly the accused in cases under UAPA are from different parts of the country and since they are not able to meet their family members they suffer psychologically because of the delay in trial.</p>.<p>During the hearing, the court was informed that 56 cases under UAPA are pending in four different courts in Bengaluru Urban district. The Registrar General’s report dated December 10, 2020, said that all the 56 cases may be transferred and allotted to anyone court to exclusively deal with the cases instead of constituting an additional court. Meanwhile, P Prasanna Kumar, special public prosecutor for NIA, submitted that 15 cases handled by the agency are pending, while five cases are at different stages of investigation and charge sheet.</p>.<p>The court directed the Registrar General to call for a report from the courts regarding stages at which the cases are pending. “The Registrar General will also consider if re-distribution of cases among four courts is necessary. Along with the data regarding the present status of the cases, the Registrar General will place necessary material on record within one month from today,” the court said. </p>.<p>The petition said the investigating agency and the prosecution do not show interest in conducting a speedy trial. In spite of express provision under Section 309 of CrPC and Section 19 of the NIA Act, the day-to-day trial is not taking place.</p>.<p>The petition relied upon a Supreme Court constitution bench observed that the accused should not remain in jail longer than it is absolutely essential.</p>
