Supreme Court Grants Bail in Counterfeit Currency Case Citing Right to Speedy Trial: Sheikh Javed Iqbal vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2024)

Date of the Judgment: 18 July 2024

Citation: 2024 INSC 534

Judges: Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan

Can an accused be kept in jail indefinitely if the trial is not progressing? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case involving serious charges under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) and the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The Court emphasized the fundamental right to a speedy trial, holding that prolonged incarceration without a timely trial is a violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. This judgment highlights the importance of balancing the severity of charges with the accused’s right to a fair and expeditious legal process. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan.

Case Background

The case began with the arrest of Sheikh Javed Iqbal on 22nd February 2015, near the Indo-Nepal border. He was found in possession of counterfeit Indian currency notes amounting to ₹26,03,500. The First Information Report (FIR) was lodged by Inspector Tej Bahadur Singh, and the appellant was charged under Sections 121A, 489B, and 489C of the IPC. During the investigation, the appellant’s identity was revealed as Sheikh Javed Iqbal @ Ashfaq Ansari @ Javed Ansari, a resident of Nepal. Along with the fake currency, a Nepalese driving license and a citizenship certificate were also recovered from him. The police stated that the appellant confessed to being involved in the illegal trade of supplying counterfeit Indian currency in Nepal. He was formally arrested on 23rd February 2015.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The appellant’s initial bail application was rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge, Special Judge, Lucknow, on 24 August 2016. Subsequently, the appellant filed a bail application before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, which was also dismissed. The prosecution filed a chargesheet under Sections 489B and 489C of the IPC on 19 August 2015, followed by a supplementary chargesheet under Section 16 of the UAP Act on 26 August 2015. The Governor of Uttar Pradesh had granted sanction on 25 August 2015, to prosecute the appellant under the IPC and UAP Act. The trial court dismissed the appellant’s discharge application on 27 May 2016, and framed charges on 16 July 2016. The Home Department of the Government of Uttar Pradesh modified the sanction on 13 January 2017, granting full sanction for prosecution under Section 16 of the UAP Act. The High Court, on 8 October 2021, quashed the cognizance order under Section 16 of the UAP Act, citing the absence of a valid sanction. The State of Uttar Pradesh appealed to the Supreme Court, which stayed the High Court’s order. On 20 February 2024, the Supreme Court disposed of the appeal, allowing the State to apply to the High Court to proceed under the UAP Act based on a subsequent sanction granted on 15 December 2021. In the meantime, the High Court rejected the appellant’s bail application on 3 April 2023, leading to the current appeal before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case involves several key legal provisions:

• Section 489B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): Deals with using forged or counterfeit currency notes as genuine. The punishment includes imprisonment for life or up to ten years, along with a fine.
• Section 489C of the IPC: Addresses the possession of forged or counterfeit currency notes with the intention to use them as genuine. The punishment is imprisonment up to seven years, a fine, or both.
• Section 16 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAP Act): This section defines and punishes ‘terrorist acts’. According to the relevant definition, a ‘terrorist act’ includes any act intended to threaten the economic security of India by damaging monetary stability through the production, smuggling, or circulation of high-quality counterfeit Indian currency. The punishment includes imprisonment for a term not less than five years, which may extend to life imprisonment, along with a fine.
• Section 43D of the UAP Act: This section modifies the application of certain provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.). Specifically, sub-section (5) states that no person accused of an offense under Chapters IV (which includes Section 16) and VI of the UAP Act shall be released on bail unless the public prosecutor has been given an opportunity to be heard. Furthermore, bail shall not be granted if the court, upon perusal of the case diary or the report under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C., believes there are reasonable grounds to conclude that the accusations are prima facie true. Sub-section (6) clarifies that these restrictions are in addition to any other restrictions on bail under the Cr.P.C. or any other law.

The legal framework highlights the serious nature of the charges against the appellant, particularly under the UAP Act, which imposes stringent conditions for bail. However, the Supreme Court also considers the constitutional right to a speedy trial, as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The appellant’s counsel, Mr. M.S. Khan, argued that the appellant had been in custody for over nine years.
• He contended that there was no likelihood of the trial concluding in the near future.
• Therefore, the appellant should be released on bail.

State of Uttar Pradesh’s Arguments:

• Ms. Garima Prasad, the Additional Advocate General for the State of Uttar Pradesh, argued that the charges against the appellant were very serious.
• She highlighted that the appellant was a foreign national, posing a flight risk.
• She contended that the appellant should not be released on bail.
• She referred to the case of Gurwinder Singh vs. State of Punjab to support the argument that the appellant, being accused under the UAP Act, is not entitled to bail.
• She requested the court to direct the trial court to expedite the trial instead of granting bail.

Innovativeness of the argument: The appellant’s argument is based on the fundamental right to speedy trial, which is an innovative approach in the face of serious charges. The State’s argument is based on the seriousness of the charges and the flight risk, which is a standard argument in such cases.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in the judgment. However, the core issue can be identified as:

1. Whether the prolonged incarceration of the appellant, without a timely trial, infringes upon his fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, despite the serious charges under the UAP Act and IPC.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates how the Court addressed the central issue:

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Gurwinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab [(2024) SCC Online SC 109]* was distinguished by the Court, stating that the facts were different as the trial was underway in that case.
• Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh Vs. State of Maharashtra (Criminal Appeal No. 2787 of 2024)* was cited to emphasize the fundamental right to a speedy trial, irrespective of the seriousness of the crime.
• Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee (Representing Undertrial Prisoners) Vs. Union of India [(1994) 6 SCC 731]* was cited for its directions regarding undertrials, particularly foreigners, and the impounding of passports.
• Shaheen Welfare Association Vs. Union of India [(1996) 2 SCC 616]* was cited to highlight the need to balance the liberty of a citizen with the interests of victims and the community in cases involving stringent laws.
• Angela Harish Sontakke Vs. State of Maharashtra [(2021) 3 SCC 723]* was cited to emphasize that the seriousness of charges must be balanced with the period of custody and the expected time for trial completion.
• Union of India Vs. K.A. Najeeb [(2021) SCC Online SC 50]* was cited to emphasize that Section 43D(5) of the UAP Act does not oust the ability of constitutional courts to grant bail on grounds of violation of Part III of the Constitution.
• NIA Vs. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali [(2019) 5 SCC 1]* was cited to clarify that the High Court should not conduct a mini-trial during bail proceedings.
• Frank Vitus Vs. Narcotics Control Bureau (Criminal Appeal No. 2814-15 of 2024)* was cited to emphasize that bail conditions cannot be arbitrary or fanciful and should not frustrate the order of bail itself.

The Supreme Court, after considering the submissions and authorities, held that the appellant’s continued incarceration was not justified. The Court emphasized that the right to a speedy trial, as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution, is paramount. The Court noted that the appellant had been in custody for over nine years, and the trial was progressing at a snail’s pace, with only two witnesses examined. The Court observed that the restrictions under Section 43D(5) of the UAP Act do not override the constitutional courts’ power to grant bail when there is a violation of fundamental rights. The Court distinguished the case from Gurwinder Singh, where the trial was already underway. The Court also reiterated that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment and that an accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty. The Court stated that the conditions of bail should not be so onerous as to frustrate the order of bail itself.

The Court quoted the following from the judgment:

“It is true that the appellant is facing charges under Section 489B IPC and under Section 16 of the UAP Act which carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment, if convicted. On the other hand, the maximum sentence under Section 489C IPC is 7 years. But as noticed above, the trial is proceeding at a snail’s pace. As per the impugned order, only two witnesses have been examined. Thus, it is evident that the trial would not be concluded in the near future.”

“It is trite law that an accused is entitled to a speedy trial. This Court in a catena of judgments has held that an accused or an undertrial has a fundamental right to speedy trial which is traceable to Article 21 of the Constitution of India. If the alleged offence is a serious one, it is all the more necessary for the prosecution to ensure that the trial is concluded expeditiously. When a trial gets prolonged, it is not open to the prosecution to oppose bail of the accused -undertrial on the ground that the charges are very serious. Bail cannot be denied only on the ground that the charges are very serious though there is no end in sight for the trial to conclude.”

“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.”

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision to grant bail was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• Right to Speedy Trial: The Court emphasized that the appellant’s fundamental right to a speedy trial, as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution, had been violated due to the prolonged delay in the trial. The Court noted that the appellant had been in custody for over nine years, and only two witnesses had been examined.
• Limitations on Statutory Restrictions: The Court held that the restrictions on granting bail under Section 43D(5) of the UAP Act do not override the constitutional courts’ power to grant bail when there is a violation of fundamental rights. The Court clarified that these statutory restrictions should not be used to deny bail when there is no likelihood of the trial being completed within a reasonable time.
• Balancing Seriousness of Charges with Liberty: While acknowledging the seriousness of the charges against the appellant, the Court emphasized that bail cannot be denied solely based on the seriousness of the charges, especially when there is no end in sight for the trial to conclude. The Court reiterated that bail is not a punishment and that an accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty.
• Onerous Bail Conditions: The Court also considered the fact that bail conditions should not be so onerous as to frustrate the order of bail itself. The Court emphasized that the constitutional rights of an accused who is ordered to be released on bail can be curtailed only to the minimum extent required.

Fact:Law

The Court’s reasoning was a step-by-step process:

The Court considered alternative interpretations of the law, particularly the strict provisions of the UAP Act, but rejected them in favor of upholding the constitutional right to a speedy trial. The Court emphasized that while the charges were serious, the prolonged delay in the trial warranted the grant of bail. The final decision was reached by balancing the seriousness of the charges with the appellant’s fundamental rights.

The Court made it clear that the restrictions under Section 43D(5) of the UAP Act do not oust the ability of the constitutional courts to grant bail on grounds of violation of Part III of the Constitution. The Court also emphasized that the right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right and that bail cannot be denied solely on the ground that the charges are serious.

Key Takeaways

• Right to Speedy Trial: The judgment reaffirms the fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution. Prolonged incarceration without a timely trial is a violation of this right.
• Bail is Not a Punishment: The Supreme Court reiterated that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment. An accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty, and bail should not be denied solely based on the seriousness of the charges.
• Limitations on Statutory Restrictions: The restrictions on granting bail under Section 43D(5) of the UAP Act do not override the constitutional courts’ power to grant bail when there is a violation of fundamental rights.
• Onerous Bail Conditions: Bail conditions should not be so onerous as to frustrate the order of bail itself. The constitutional rights of an accused who is ordered to be released on bail can be curtailed only to the minimum extent required.
• Impact on Future Cases: This judgment will likely influence future cases where trials are significantly delayed, especially those involving stringent laws like the UAP Act. It sets a precedent for granting bail when the right to a speedy trial is violated.

Directions

The Supreme Court issued the following directions:

1. The impugned order of the High Court dated 03.04.2023 was set aside and quashed.
2. The appellant was directed to be released on bail subject to the following conditions:
   • The trial court shall impound the passport and/or citizenship document(s) of the appellant. If those are in the custody of the prosecution, they shall be handed over to the trial court.
   • The appellant shall not leave the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court and shall furnish his address to the trial court.
   • The appellant shall appear before the trial court on each and every date of the trial.
   • The appellant shall mark his attendance before the police station which the trial court may indicate once every fortnight until the conclusion of the trial.
   • The appellant shall not tamper with the evidence and shall not threaten the witnesses.
3. If there is any violation of the bail conditions, it would be open to the prosecution to move the trial court for cancellation of bail.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution, and prolonged incarceration without a timely trial is a violation of this right. The judgment clarifies that the restrictions on granting bail under Section 43D(5) of the UAP Act do not override the constitutional courts’ power to grant bail when there is a violation of fundamental rights. This judgment reinforces the principle that bail cannot be denied solely based on the seriousness of the charges, especially when there is no end in sight for the trial to conclude. This also clarifies that the bail conditions should not be so onerous as to frustrate the order of bail itself. The judgment also clarifies that the decision in NIA vs. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali has to be read and understood in the context in which it was rendered and not as a precedent to deny bail to an accused -undertrial suffering long incarceration with no end in sight of the criminal trial.

Conclusion

In summary, the Supreme Court’s judgment in Sheikh Javed Iqbal vs. State of Uttar Pradesh emphasizes the importance of the right to a speedy trial, particularly in cases involving serious charges under stringent laws like the UAP Act. The Court’s decision to grant bail to the appellant, who had been in custody for over nine years without a timely trial, underscores the principle that prolonged incarceration without a fair and expeditious legal process is a violation of fundamental rights. The judgment serves as a reminder that statutory restrictions on bail must be balanced with the constitutional rights of the accused, and that bail cannot be denied solely based on the severity of the charges when there is no prospect of a timely trial. This case sets a significant precedent for future cases involving delayed trials and reinforces the judiciary’s commitment to upholding the principles of justice and fairness.