Prefatory Note
In the recent ruling in the case of Sheikh Javed Iqbal@ Ashfaq Ansari@ Javed Ansari v. State of Uttar Pradesh[i], the Supreme Court addressed the issue of balancing the constitutional right to a speedy trial with the need to ensure justice for serious criminal offences. The appellant, Ashfaq Ansari, was arrested in 2015 for possessing counterfeit Indian currency, facing charges under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (‘UAP Act’). The judgment pronounced by the Supreme Court focused on the significant delays in the trial process, which resulted in the appellant’s prolonged incarceration. Therefore, the Supreme Court emphasised the importance of timely judicial proceedings and the protection of the accused’s right to a speedy trial as enshrined in the a. 21 of the Constitution of India (‘Constitution’).
Brief Facts
The appellant was arrested on 22.02.2015 at the Indo-Nepal border. He was found to possess fake Indian currency notes totalling Rs. 26,03,500. The Anti-Terrorist Squad of Uttar Pradesh conducted the arrest.
The first information report (‘FIR’) was filed under ss. 121A (conspiring to commit certain offences against the State), 489B (intentionally using forged or counterfeit currency notes or bank notes as genuine), and 489C (possession of counterfeit currency notes or banknotes) of the IPC and s. 16 (punishment for committing a ‘terrorist act’) of the UAP Act. The appellant allegedly engaged in the illegal trade of counterfeit Indian currency in Nepal.
During the investigation, additional items, such as a Nepalese driving license and citizenship certificate, were recovered. The appellant confessed to his involvement in the counterfeit currency trade. Chargesheets were filed on 19.08.2015 and 26.08.2015, with the Governor granting sanction for prosecution under the UAP Act on 25.08.2015.
The appellant’s discharge application was rejected on 27.05.2016. The trial court framed charges on 16.07.2016, but the sanction for prosecution under the UAP Act was later challenged.
On 08.10.2021, the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court quashed the sanction for prosecution under s. 16 of the UAP Act, ruling that it was invalid due to non-compliance with statutory requirements. The trial court was directed to proceed only with the charges under ss. 489B and 489C of the IPC.
The State of Uttar Pradesh filed a special leave petition (‘SLP’) against the High Court’s order. On 20.02.2024, the Supreme Court noted that a new sanction had been granted on 15.12.2021 but declined to re-examine the issue on merit, leaving it to the High Court to consider the new developments.
The appellant’s bail application before the High Court was rejected on 03.04.2023. The High Court noted the seriousness of the charges and the appellant’s foreign nationality as reasons for denying bail. Therefore, this appeal is directed against the order dated 03.04.2023 by the High, which rejected Ashfaq Ansari's bail application.
Issue
The primary issue in this appeal is whether the High Court erred in rejecting the appellant’s bail application despite his prolonged incarceration and the slow pace of the trial.
Held
The Supreme Court observed that the appellant had been in custody for over nine years, with only two witnesses’ evidence recorded. This prolonged incarceration, coupled with the slow pace of the trial, constituted a violation of the appellant’s right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The Supreme Court further observed that although the High Court had invalidated the original sanctions, a subsequent valid sanction was granted on 15.12.2021. However, the Supreme Court left it to the High Court to decide on the basis of this new sanction.
Furthermore, considering the extensive delay in the trial and the appellant’s long period of incarceration, the Supreme Court found it unjust to deny bail solely based on the seriousness of the charges. The Court emphasised that the right to a speedy trial is fundamental, and prolonged detention without trial could not be justified. The Supreme Court also referred to the case of Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb[ii] to reach this reasoning, wherein it was held that long incarceration with the unlikely possibility of trial being completed soon is a good ground to grant bail.
Thus, the Supreme Court directed that the trial court expedite the proceedings, recognising that a fair trial within a reasonable time frame is crucial for justice. Further, the appellant's bail was also allowed, and the order by the High Court was set aside.
Our Analysis
In its deliberation, the Supreme Court primarily focused on striking a balance between the constitutional mandate for a speedy trial, ensuring justice for serious crimes, and safeguarding the rights of the accused. Although the charges are serious, the Supreme Court noted that the trial was progressing sluggishly, with only two witnesses having testified over several years. Such delays undermine the efficacy of the judicial process and potentially affect the fairness of the trial.
By granting bail, the Court aimed to mitigate the adverse effects of these delays on the appellant, acknowledging that continued detention without trial could unjustly extend the period of incarceration. In essence, it can be concluded that the Supreme Court, irrespective of the seriousness of the charges, placed paramount importance on the principles of justice and fairness.
End Notes
[i] Criminal Appeal No. 2790 of 2024.
[ii] (2021) SCC Online SC 50.
Authored by Muskaan Jain, Advocate at Metalegal Advocates. The views expressed are personal and do not constitute legal opinions.