Long Incarceration & Unlikely Likelihood Of Trial Being Completed In Near Future Are Grounds For Constitutional Courts To Grant Bail: SC

The Supreme Court, in a recent Judgment, observed that long incarceration and unlikely likelihood of trial being completed in near future are grounds for Constitutional Courts to grant bail on violation of Article 21 of the Constitution.

The Court observed thus in a Criminal Appeal filed by the accused seeking bail during the pendency of trial after dismissal of his Bail Application by the Patna High Court.

The two-Judge Bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih noted, “Long incarceration and unlikely likelihood of trial being completed in near future has also been taken as a ground for exercising its constitutional role by the Constitutional Courts to grant bail on violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India which guarantees trial to be concluded within a reasonable time.”

The Bench added that, gross delay in conclusion of the trial would justify such invocation leading to a conclusion of violation of Part III the Constitution of India, which may be taken as a ground to release an undertrial on bail.

Senior Advocate Aditya Sondhi appeared for the Appellant while ASG Aishwarya Bhati appeared for the Respondent.

Brief Facts -

The Appellant was booked as accused in an FIR registered under Sections 120, 120-B, 121, 121A, 153A, 153B, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). He along with a co-accused was arrested in July 2022. The allegations against him were that he was an active member of the banned organization Popular Front of India (PFI) and he along with his associates were allegedly planning to cause disturbance during the proposed visit of Prime Minister of India to Patna. This led to the raid being conducted at first floor Ahmad Palace, Phulwari Sharif, Patna which was taken on rent by the Appellant from the co-accused. During the raid certain recoveries were carried out, prominent amongst them was a document titled “India 2047 towards rule of Islam in India, internal Document not for circulation”.

Assertions were made in the Complaint on the basis of the documents seized that the Appellant along with the other members of the PFI aimed at disrupting the sovereignty of India and cause disaffection against the country. Keeping in view the seriousness of the allegations and the offences involved, the Government of India vide Official Order directed the National Investigating Agency (NIA) to take up the investigation. Accordingly, the NIA re-registered a case under Section 13 of the of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) and took up the investigation. The Appellant was before the Apex Court, seeking bail.

The Supreme Court in view of the above facts, said, “Allegations against the Appellant with regard to having collected Zakat from the people for helping the PFI or recruiting members of PFI. Suffice it to say at this stage, that on the day such activities were carried out by the Appellant, PFI was not a banned organisation.”

The Court added that, none of the witnesses or the protected witnesses stated that the money so collected in the form of Zakat was ever misappropriated by the Appellant or was in any manner used for illegal activities and that the statement of the protected witnesses has not mentioned anything specific that would be attributed to the Appellant which could prima facie attract charges under the UAPA.

“The Appellant for this purpose shall be produced before the Special Court within a maximum period of 07 days from today. The Special Court shall enlarge the Appellant on bail until the conclusion of the trial on appropriate terms and conditions after hearing the Counsel for the Respondent”, it directed.

Accordingly, the Apex Court allowed the Appeal, set aside the impugned Judgment, and granted bail to the accused.

Cause Title- Athar Parwez v. Union of India (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 995)

Appearance:

Appellant: Senior Advocate Aditya Sondhi, AOR Shashank Singh, Advocates Divyesh Pratap Singh, Adil Sharfuddin, Anubhav Kumar, Maeen Mavaram, and Prapti Shrivastava.

Respondent: ASG Aishwarya Bhati, AOR Arvind Kumar Sharma, Advocates Shivika Mehra, Bani Dikshit, Seema Bengani, Parantap Singh, Rajeshwari Shankar, and Pooja Kumari.

Click here to read/download the Judgment