State Should Not Oppose Accused's Bail Plea Citing Seriousness Of Crime If It Cannot Protect His Fundamental Right To Speedy Trial: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court observed that if the State or any prosecuting agency is not able protect the fundamental right of an accused to have a speedy trial, then it should not oppose the plea for bail on the ground that the crime committed is serious.

The Court said that Article 21 of the Constitution applies irrespective of the nature of the crime.

While granting bail to a UAPA accused, the bench of Justice J B Pardiwala and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan observed: "If the State or any prosecuting agency including the court concerned has no wherewithal to provide or protect the fundamental right of an accused to have a speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution then the State or any other prosecuting agency should not oppose the plea for bail on the ground that the crime committed is serious. Article 21 of the Constitution applies irrespective of the nature of the crime"

Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh is facing prosecution under the provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967.

As per the prosecution case, on 9th February 2020 at about 9.30 am, on the basis of some secret information, the accused-appellant was apprehended by Mumbai Police of the DCB CID Unit VIII from a bus stop at Terminal II Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj International Airport, Andheri. The appellant had a bag with him and from the bag 1193 numbers of counterfeit Indian currency notes of the denomination of Rs 2,000 were recovered. The counterfeit notes were seized and the appellant herein was arrested. The First Information Report was registered at the Sahar Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 489B, 489C, 120B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The investigation was ultimately taken over by the NIA. Earlier this year, the Bombay High Court dismissed his bail plea.

Taking note of the fact that the accused is in custody past four years, the bench observed: "Howsoever serious a crime may be, an accused has a right to speedy trial as enshrined under the Constitution of India.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."

The court further noted 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.

"Criminals are not born out but made. The human potential in everyone is good and so, never write off any criminal as beyond redemption. This humanist fundamental is often missed when dealing with delinquents, juvenile and adult. Indeed, every saint has a past and every sinner a future. When a crime is committed, a variety of factors is responsible for making the offender commit the crime. Those factors may be social and economic, may be, the result of value erosion or parental neglect; may be, because of the stress of circumstances, or the manifestation of temptations in a milieu of affluence contrasted with indigence or other privations.", it added.

The Court, taking note of the case records, concluded that the right of the accused to have a speedy trial could be said to have been infringed thereby violating Article 21 of the Constitution.

Case name: Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh vs State of Maharashtra 2024 INSC 645

Appearance:

Appellants: Advocates Sherali S. Khan, Sushant Kumar Yadav, Ankur Yadav

Respondents: Advocates Abhikalp Pratap Singh, Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR, Bharat Bagla, Aagam Kaur, Aditya Krishna, Preet S. Phanse, Yamini Singh, Adarsh Dubey, Kartikey, Shubhendu Anand, Siddharth Sinha, Madhav Sinhal, Amit Sharma B, Arvind Kumar Sharma

Click here to read/download Judgment