While Delhi High Court has raised several questions on the scope and applicability of the Unlawful Activities Act against Delhi riots accused Natasha Narwal. While granting them bail, senior police officers feel the relevance of the lase and its provisions will be fully settled only in the course of the trial. The three accused have only been granted bail and the Delhi High Court's observations in their  bail orders shall not have any bearing on the trial. Whether or not charges are made out against them under Section 15, 17 and 18 of UAPA is something that shall be decided during the trial, based on the evidence presented by t he prosecution, said a senior IPS officer who did not want to be named. The officer said UAPA can be invoked in case where an act intending to strike terror among the people by use of bombs and inflammable substances, results in death or injury to any person or persons. Section 18 of the Act covers not only those committing the actual but all who were part of the conspiracy to commit it. Incidentally, the maximum penalty is the same if UAPA was invoked and where the accused has been charged under IPC sections like Section 202. Even in terms of evidentiary value there is not much of a difference, said an intelligence officer. The court in its ruling has said there is a need to confine the application of UAPA narrowly given its severe peanties. Though provides for a longer police remaned instead of 15 as per Section 167 which may facilitate investigation. Also, the trial can be conducted by a special court where UAPA is invoked, which makes disposal faster. "Delhi High Court observations do not impact the charges invoked under UAPA against the three accused granted bail on Tuesday. Only the tribal court will decide whether UAPA charges against them will stand or not, based on evidence on record.
