Legal Provisions Involved: Section 45 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), Section 21(4) of The National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 

Judgment by: Karnataka High Court

Judge/Bench: Justice H.P. Sandesh & Justice Venkatesh Naik T

Facts

A man linked to PFI was accused of serious offences under UAPA, including claims that he was involved in radicalising youth. The government had already given sanction to prosecute UAPA offences in the case, and the court had taken cognisance. While asking for bail, the accused argued that there was no separate sanction order mentioning his name, so the case against him should not continue.

Key Legal Provisions

Section 45 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA)

Section 21(4) of The National Investigation Agency Act, 2008

Issues Raised

Does the law require a separate sanction for every accused person? Or is one sanction for the offence enough?

Arguments of the case

The accused said the case was invalid because he was not named in the sanction. The prosecution said sanction is linked to the offence, not to each individual.

Judgment

The High Court agreed with the prosecution. It said courts take cognisance of offences, not people. Once sanction is given for the UAPA offences, the case can continue against all accused. A separate sanction for each person is not required. Bail was refused.

Click here to VIEW the full judgement.