Right to Speedy Trial Prevails: Supreme Court Grants Bail in UAPA Case

Date of the Judgment: July 3, 2024

Citation: 2024 INSC 645

Judges: Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ujjal Bhuyan

Can the State continue to detain an accused person for an extended period without a trial? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case involving charges under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA). The Court emphasized the fundamental right to a speedy trial, as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution, and granted bail to an accused who had been in custody for four years without the commencement of trial. This judgment underscores the importance of timely justice and the impermissibility of using pre-trial detention as a form of punishment. The judgment was authored by Justice J.B. Pardiwala, with Justice Ujjal Bhuyan concurring.

Case Background

The case revolves around the appellant, Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh, who was arrested on February 9, 2020, at Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj International Airport, Mumbai. He was found in possession of 1,193 counterfeit Indian currency notes of Rs 2,000 denomination. The initial investigation was conducted by the Mumbai Police, who registered a First Information Report (FIR) for offenses under Sections 489B, 489C, 120B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution alleged that the counterfeit currency was smuggled from Pakistan to Mumbai. Subsequently, the National Investigation Agency (NIA) took over the investigation, registering Case No. RC/03/20/NIA/Mumbai. The investigation revealed that the appellant had visited Dubai on February 6, 2020, where he allegedly received the counterfeit notes from an absconding accused. He returned to India on February 9, 2020, and was apprehended.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The appellant was arrested and has been in custody for four years. The trial court has not yet framed charges. Two co-accused were also arrested in connection with the same offense and are currently out on bail. The order granting bail to one of the co-accused is currently under challenge before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the interpretation and application of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. The Supreme Court has consistently interpreted this right to include the right to a speedy trial. The court also considered Section 19 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, which mandates that trials under the Act be conducted on a day-to-day basis.

The relevant legal provisions cited in the judgment are:

• Article 21 of the Constitution of India: “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.”
• Section 19 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008: Mandates that trials under the Act be held on a day-to-day basis.

Arguments

The appellant’s primary argument was that his continued detention for four years without the commencement of trial violated his fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution. He contended that the delay was unreasonable and unjust, and that bail should not be withheld as a form of punishment.

The State and the NIA, while acknowledging the delay, sought time to present their case. They did not specifically argue against the grant of bail but highlighted the seriousness of the offense and the need to examine a large number of witnesses (80).

The Supreme Court noted that despite the seriousness of the offense, the appellant’s right to a speedy trial could not be ignored. The Court emphasized that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment and that prolonged pre-trial detention can have severe consequences for the accused.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The core issue before the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether the appellant’s continued detention for four years without the commencement of trial violated his fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on several key judgments to support its decision. These judgments emphasize the importance of the right to a speedy trial and the principle that bail should not be withheld as a punishment.

Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court’s order that had denied bail to the appellant. The Court ordered the appellant’s release on bail, subject to conditions imposed by the trial court. The Court also imposed the condition 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.

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Gudikanti Narasimhulu & Ors. v. Public Prosecutor [(1978) 1 SCC 240]*: The Court reiterated the principle that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment, quoting Lord Russel, C.J., who stated, “it cannot be too strongly impressed on the magistracy of the country that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment, but that the requirements as to bail are merely to secure the attendance of the prisoner at trial.”
• Gurbaksh Singh Sibba v. State of Punjab [(1980) 2 SCC 565]*: The Court reaffirmed that the object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused at the trial and that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment.
• Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secy., State of Bihar [(1980) 1 SCC 81]*: The Court cited this case to emphasize that the right to a speedy trial is implicit in the broad sweep of Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court noted that a procedure for depriving a person of liberty cannot be considered reasonable, fair, or just unless it ensures a speedy trial.
• Kadra Pahadiya & Ors. v. State of Bihar [(1981) 3 SCC 671]*: The Court reiterated the importance of the right to a speedy trial.
• Abdul Rehman Antulay v. R.S. Nayak [(1992) 1 SCC 225]*: The Court cited this case to re-emphasize the right to a speedy trial and to highlight the obligation of the State to proceed with cases promptly, especially for those from poorer sections of society.
• Mohd Muslim @ Hussain v. State (NCT of Delhi) [2023 INSC 311]*: The Court referred to this case to highlight the injustice caused by delayed trials, the overcrowding of jails, and the risk of “prisonisation” and further deleterious effects on the accused.
• Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb [(2021) 3 SCC 713]*: The Court relied on this judgment to clarify that statutory restrictions like Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA do not oust the ability of constitutional courts to grant bail on grounds of violation of Part III of the Constitution, particularly when there is no likelihood of trial being completed within a reasonable time.
• Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation [(2022) 10 SCC 51]*: The Court referred to this case to emphasize that Section 436A of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, would apply to Special Acts also in the absence of any specific provision, and that the rigour of special Acts should not come in the way of granting bail if the trial is unduly delayed.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following:

• The prolonged pre-trial detention of the appellant for four years without the commencement of trial.
• The fundamental right to a speedy trial as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution.
• The principle that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment.
• The observations made in previous judgments regarding the importance of speedy trials and the detrimental effects of prolonged pre-trial detention.
• The fact that the trial court had not even framed charges, and the prosecution intended to examine 80 witnesses, making it unlikely that the trial would conclude in the near future.

The following table shows the ranking of sentiment analysis of reasons given by the Supreme Court as to what weighed in the mind of the court to come to the conclusion:

Fact:Law

The ratio table below shows the sentiment analysis of the Supreme Court to show the ratio of fact:law percentage that influenced the court to decide.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered the alternative interpretation that the seriousness of the offense and the ongoing investigation warranted continued detention. However, it rejected this interpretation, emphasizing that the right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right that cannot be ignored, even in serious cases. The court noted, “Howsoever serious a crime may be, an accused has a right to speedy trial as enshrined under the Constitution of India.” The Court also stated, “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.” Further, the court observed, “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.”

Key Takeaways

• Prolonged pre-trial detention without a speedy trial violates Article 21 of the Constitution.
• Bail should not be withheld as a form of punishment.
• The right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right that must be protected, even in serious cases.
• Courts must be sensitive to the impact of prolonged incarceration on the accused, especially those from weaker sections of society.
• The State has an obligation to ensure timely trials, and delays cannot be used as a justification for denying bail.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the appellant be released on bail, subject to the following conditions:

• The appellant shall not leave the limits of Mumbai city.
• The appellant shall mark his presence at the concerned NIA office or police station once every fifteen days.
• Any other condition which the trial court may deem fit to impose in accordance with law.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that prolonged pre-trial detention without a speedy trial is a violation of the fundamental right to life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. This judgment reinforces the existing legal position that bail should not be withheld as a punishment and that the right to a speedy trial is paramount. The judgment also reiterates the applicability of Section 436A of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, to special acts in the absence of any specific provisions.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision to grant bail to the appellant underscores the importance of the right to a speedy trial and the principle that bail should not be used as a form of punishment. This judgment serves as a reminder to trial courts and High Courts to ensure that pre-trial detention does not become a substitute for a fair and timely trial, particularly in cases where the accused has been in custody for an extended period without any progress in the trial.