Constitutional Court Can’t Be Restrained From Granting Bail Due To Restrictive Statutory Provisions If Fundamental Right Of Accused Is Infringed: SC
|The Supreme Court emphasised that the court cannot be restrained from granting bail to an accused due to restrictive statutory provisions in a penal statute if the right of the accused under Article 21 of the Constitution has been infringed.
The Court was dealing with a criminal appeal filed by the accused against the order of the Allahabad High Court by which it rejected his bail application.
The two-Judge Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan observed, “This Court has, time and again, emphasized that right to life and personal liberty enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is overarching and sacrosanct. A constitutional court cannot be restrained from granting bail to an accused on account of restrictive statutory provisions in a penal statute if it finds that the right of the accused-undertrial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India has been infringed. In that event, such statutory restrictions would not come in the way.”
The Bench added that even in the case of interpretation of a penal statute, howsoever stringent it may be, a constitutional court has to lean in favour of constitutionalism and the rule of law of which liberty is an intrinsic part.
Advocate M.S. Khan appeared for the appellant/accused while Additional Advocate General (AAG) Garima Prasad appeared for the respondent/State.
Facts of the Case -
An FIR was lodged against the appellant/accused by the informant inspector under Sections 121A, 489B, and 489C of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 16 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA). It was alleged that fake Indian currency notes of the denomination of Rs. 1,000 and Rs. 500/-, totalling a sum of Rs. 26,03,500/- were recovered from the appellant’s possession in 2015 from the Indo-Nepal Border. He was apprehended by a constable and additionally, one Nepalese driving license of the appellant and one Nepalese citizenship certificate of him were also recovered besides two mobile phones.
As per the police, the appellant confessed that he was engaged in the illegal trade of supplying counterfeit Indian currency notes in Nepal. As a result, he was arrested. He moved a bail application before the Trial Court but the same was rejected. Thereafter, he filed bail application before the Single Judge of the High Court but the same was also dismissed. Challenging the same, he approached the Apex Court.
The Supreme Court in the above context of the case said, “This Court as an interim measure had granted bail to the accused appellant and thereafter passed a detailed judgment in Frank Vitus Vs. Narcotics Control Bureau, Criminal Appeal No. 2814-15 of 2024, decided on 08.07.2024. This Court after referring to earlier decisions of this Court held that conditions of bail cannot be arbitrary and fanciful. The expression ‘interest of justice’ finding place in Section 437(3) Cr.P.C. means only good administration of justice or advancing the trial process. It cannot be given any further broader meaning to curtail the liberty of an accused granted bail. Courts cannot impose freakish conditions while granting bail. Bail conditions must be consistent with the object of granting bail.”
The Court enunciated that while imposing bail conditions, the constitutional rights of an accused who is ordered to be released on bail can be curtailed only to the minimum extent required and even when an accused is in jail, he cannot be deprived of his right to life which is a basic human right of every individual.
“This Court held that bail conditions cannot be so onerous so as to frustrate the order of bail itself. … This Court clarified that it is not necessary that in every case where bail is granted to the accused in an NDPS case who is a foreign national, the condition of obtaining a certificate of assurance from the Embassy or the High Commission should be incorporated. Consequently, in Frank Vitus (supra), this Court while confirming the bail granted to the appellant, set aside the two impugned conditions”, it noted.
Furthermore, the Court said that a constitutional court may decline to grant bail but it would be very wrong to say that under a particular statute, bail cannot be granted.
Accordingly, the Apex Court disposed of the appeal, quashed the impugned order, and granted bail to the accused.
Cause Title- Sheikh Javed Iqbal @ Ashfaq Ansari @ Javed Ansari v. State of Uttar Pradesh (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 534)
Appearance:
Appellant: Advocates M.S. Khan, Tripurari Ray, Balwant Singh Billowria, Qusar Khan, Anirudh Ray, Vivekanand Singh, Akshay Singh, and AOR Manu Shanker Mishra.
Respondent: Sr. AAG Garima Prasad and AOR Shaurya Sahay.