Introduction
In the case of Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.[i], the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India (‘SC’) granted bail to the Appellant since the Appellant was in custody for a period of over 4 years. The SC granted bail to the Appellant on the grounds that the Appellant was incarcerated for a period of 4 years, the Trial Court had not framed charges, and the Respondent Agency intended to call upon 80 witnesses. The SC further emphasized the Appellant's right to a swift trial as guaranteed under a. 21 of the Constitution of India (‘Constitution’). The SC further reiterated that the principle of the right to a speedy trial as enshrined under a. 21 of the Constitution applies equally to all the accused persons under trial, irrespective of the nature of the offence they committed.
Brief facts
On 09.02.2020, on the basis of an undisclosed intelligence, the DCB CID Unit VIII of Mumbai Police (‘State Police’) arrested the Applicant from a bus stop near Terminal – II of the Chatrapati Shivaji Maharaj Airport, Andheri. Further, a search revealed that the Appellant had a bag of 1193 counterfeit Indian currency of denomination Rs. 2,000. The unit then seized the counterfeit notes, and the first investigation report (‘FIR’) was registered under ss. 120B, 489B and 489C read with s. 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’)
The State Police alleged that the seized counterfeit notes were being smuggled from Pakistan to Mumbai. Therefore, due to the seriousness of the crime, the investigation was transferred to the National Investigation Agency (‘NIA’), i.e., the Respondent Agency and a new case was registered under similar sections of the previous FIR.
The investigation further revealed that, on 06.02.2020, the Appellant had visited Dubai and returned to India on 09.02.2020, where he allegedly smuggled the counterfeit notes from Dubai through one of the absconding accused persons of this case.
The Appellant was in custody for a period of four years, and the Trial Court had not framed charges against the Appellant during that period. Furthermore, the NIA intended to call at least 80 witnesses, which would have delayed the timeframe for the conclusion of the trial.
The Bombay High Court (‘BHC’) had rejected the bail of the Appellant. Therefore, aggrieved by the decision of the BHC, the Appellant appealed to the SC.
Observations
The SC criticized the decisions of Trial Courts and High Courts for overlooking the established legal principle that bail should not be denied as a form of punishment. The SC further relied on various precedents of the SC's co-ordinate benches and noted that the right to a speedy trial, as enshrined under a. 21 of the Constitution, is a fundamental right that exists for accused persons incarcerated for a prolonged period.
The SC emphasized that according to s. 19 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (‘NIA Act’), trials for offences under the NIA Act must be held daily in a Special Court on all working days. Special courts should prioritize other cases. It also emphasized that the Central Government, in consultation with the Chief Justice of the High Court, has designated Special Courts as outlined in s. 11 of the NIA Act.
Notably, the SC relied on a three-judge bench decision of Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb,[ii] observed statutory limitations like s. 43-D (5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (‘UAPA Act’) does not automatically prevent constitutional courts from granting bail. Both the statutory restrictions and the constitutional powers can coexist. This approach prevents s. 43-D (5) of the UAPA Act from becoming the sole reason for denying bail or causing widespread violations of the constitutional right to a speedy trial.
The SC granted bail to the Appellant on the ground that the Appellant was in custody for a period of four years, and the Trial Court had also not framed charges against the Appellant in this period. Furthermore, the NIA intended to call at least 80 witnesses, and the conclusion of the trial could not be determined. Therefore, the SC allowed the appeal.
The SC observed that the concept of criminality is not inherent but rather a product of environmental and individual factors. It further observed that the humanistic approach is often overlooked when dealing with juvenile and adult offenders in such cases.
The SC further emphasized that the principles of bail were repeatedly laid down in various decisions of the co-ordinate courts and, therefore, deplored the High Courts for ignoring the settled principles of law regarding bail for an accused person under trial.
The SC held that the NIA cannot guarantee a speedy trial as mandated by a. 21 of the Constitution, so it should not oppose bail applications based on the severity of the crime. The SC further observed that the presumption of innocence is a cornerstone of criminal justice and must prevail regardless of the offence. The SC also observed that the Appellant remains an accused person, not a convicted person.
The SC, therefore, allowed the appeal and granted bail to the Appellant, subject to the conditions that the Appellant must stay within Mumbai city and report to the designated NIA office or police station every fifteen days. Subsequently, the Trial Court may impose further conditions as it deems necessary.
Our Analysis
This recent SC decision to grant bail under UAPA, considering lengthy pre-trial detention and potential trial delays, marks a turning point in UAPA. The SC's emphasis on the appellant's fundamental rights, particularly the right to a speedy trial under a. 21 of the Constitution, is a commendable step towards a just and humane legal system. The true impact of this decision will hinge on its applications in similar pending cases, including those involving economic offences.
The SC reaffirmed that bail decisions should not solely depend on the severity of charges, citing the landmark judgment of Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation,[iii] which recognized bail as an option when trial timelines are uncertain. The SC's observations particularly benefit those facing extended pre-trial detentions under stricter bail laws. This decision offers relief to cases where the prosecution is attributable to the delay of the trial but not where the accused person contributes to such delay of trial. The SC also emphasizes the need to balance national security concerns with individual rights.
End Notes
[i] MANU/SC/0609/2024.
[ii](2021) 3 SCC 713.
[iii] (2022) 10 SCC 51.
Authored by Aishwarya Pawar, Advocate at Metalegal Advocates. The views expressed are personal and do not constitute legal opinion.
Comentarios