If State or prosecuting agency including court can’t protect accused’s fundamental right to speedy trial, then it should not oppose bail plea on the ground that the crime committed is serious: Apex Court brants bail to accused in UAPA case
Justices J B Pardiwala & Ujjal Bhuyan [03-07-2024]

Read Order: Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra and Another [SC- Crl Appeal No 2787 of 2024]

LE Correspondent

New Delhi, July 5, 2024: Emphasizing the fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court has granted bail to a man who was arrested in February 2020 for allegedly smuggling counterfeit currency notes from Pakistan to Mumbai and charged under provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. The Top Court observed that the accused has been in jail as an under-trial prisoner for the past four years and the trial has made no progress.

“We are convinced that the manner in which the prosecuting agency as well as the Court have proceeded, the right of the accused to have a speedy trial could be said to have been infringed thereby violating Article 21 of the Constitution,” observed a bench of Justice J B Pardiwala and Justice Ujjan Bhuyan. “The appellant is in jail as an under-trial prisoner past four years. Till this date, the trial court has not been able to even proceed to frame charge, and… the prosecution intends to examine not less than eighty witnesses.”

The apex court expressed concern over the prolonged incarceration of the accused, observing “We may hasten to add that the petitioner is still an accused; not a convict. The over-arching postulate of criminal jurisprudence that an accused is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty cannot be brushed aside lightly, howsoever stringent the penal law may be.”

The case, investigated by the National Investigation Agency (NIA), involved the seizure of 1,193 counterfeit Indian currency notes of Rs 2,000 denomination from the accused, Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh, at Mumbai’s Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj International Airport.

Despite the serious nature of the offence, the Supreme Court observed that the trial had not progressed significantly even after four years, with the prosecution intending to examine over 80 witnesses. "Howsoever serious a crime may be, an accused has a right to speedy trial as enshrined under the Constitution of India,"  the bench remarked. The court referred to several landmark judgments such as Gudikanti Narasimhulu & Ors. v. Public Prosecutor, Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secy., State of Bihar and Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia Etc v. State Of Punjab, which established the right to a speedy trial as an integral part of the fundamental right to life and liberty under Article 21.

The Bench also observed that “Over a period of time, the trial courts and the High Courts have forgotten a very well settled principle of law that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment”.

The bench also highlighted the overcrowding in jails and the appalling living conditions of prisoners. Quoting recent statistics, the court noted that as of December 2021, over 5,54,034 prisoners were lodged in jails against a total capacity of 4,25,069, with a majority being undertrials. "If the State or any prosecuting agency including the court concerned has no wherewithal to provide or protect the fundamental right of an accused to have a speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution, then the State or any other prosecuting agency should not oppose the plea for bail on the ground that the crime committed is serious," the court stated.

While granting bail to Shaikh, the Supreme Court imposed certain conditions, including that the appellant shall not leave the limits of Mumbai city and shall mark his presence at the concerned NIA office or police station once every fifteen days.