In Brief
An accused person arrested under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act sought redacted copies of statements of protected witnesses to prepare his defence. The trial court initially declared five witnesses as protected under Section 44 of the UAPA to safeguard their identity and safety. Later, the same trial court permitted the accused to obtain redacted copies (with identity and identifying details removed) under Section 207 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The High Court reversed this, viewing it as improper review. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the two orders exercise different powers at different stages: the first protects witnesses; the second fulfils the accused's right to fair trial. These are not conflicting exercises but separate applications of law.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.