2023 (5) TMI 321 - SC - Indian Laws

Appeal allowed, interim bail granted where stringent special-law bail rules require speedy trial and humanitarian consideration

MOHD MUSLIM Versus STATE (NCT OF DELHI)  

SC allowed the appeal and granted interim bail to the appellant subject to trial-court conditions. The Court held that stringent statutory bail ... Seeking grant of Interim Bail - right to speedy trial of offenders facing criminal charges is implicit in the broad sweep and content of Article 21 as interpreted by this Court - HELD THAT:- When provisions of law curtail the right of an accused to secure bail, and correspondingly fetter judicial discretion (like Section 37 of the NDPS Act, in the present case), this court has upheld them for conflating two competing values, i.e., the right of the accused to enjoy freedom, based on the presumption of innocence, and societal interest as observed in VAMAN NARAIN GHIYA VERSUS STATE OF RAJASTHAN [2008 (12) TMI 446 - SUPREME COURT] (“the concept of bail emerges from the conflict between the police power to restrict liberty of a man who is alleged to have committed a crime, and presumption of innocence in favour of the alleged criminal”). They are, at the same time, upheld on the condition that the trial is concluded expeditiously. The Constitution Bench in KARTAR SINGH VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB [1994 (3) TMI 379 - SUPREME COURT] made observations to this effect. In Shaheen Welfare Association v. Union of India [[1996 (2) TMI 597 - SUPREME COURT]] again, this court expressed the same sentiment, namely that when stringent provisions are enacted, curtailing the provisions of bail, and restricting judicial discretion, it is on the basis that investigation and trials would be concluded swiftly. The conditions which courts have to be cognizant of are that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is “not guilty of such offence” and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. What is meant by “not guilty” when all the evidence is not before the court? It can only be a prima facie determination - Given the mandate of the general law on bails (Sections 436, 437 and 439, CrPC) which classify offences based on their gravity, and instruct that certain serious crimes have to be dealt with differently while considering bail applications, the additional condition that the court should be satisfied that the accused (who is in law presumed to be innocent) is not guilty, has to be interpreted reasonably. Further the classification of offences under Special Acts (NDPS Act, etc.), which apply over and above the ordinary bail conditions required to be assessed by courts, require that the court records its satisfaction that the accused might not be guilty of the offence and that upon release, they are not likely to commit any offence. These two conditions have the effect of overshadowing other conditions. In cases where bail is sought, the court assesses the material on record such as the nature of the offence, likelihood of the accused co-operating with the investigation, not fleeing from justice: even in serious offences like murder, kidnapping, rape, etc. On the other hand, the court in these cases under such special Acts, have to address itself principally on two facts: likely guilt of the accused and the likelihood of them not committing any offence upon release. Incarceration has further deleterious effects - where the accused belongs to the weakest economic strata: immediate loss of livelihood, and in several cases, scattering of families as well as loss of family bonds and alienation from society. The courts therefore, have to be sensitive to these aspects (because in the event of an acquittal, the loss to the accused is irreparable), and ensure that trials – especially in cases, where special laws enact stringent provisions, are taken up and concluded speedily. The appellant is directed to be enlarged on bail, subject to such conditions as the trial court may impose - Appeal allowed. Issues Involved:1. Right to speedy trial under Article 21.2. Rejection of bail application by the High Court.3. Applicability of Section 37 of the NDPS Act.4. Prolonged incarceration and its implications.Summary:1. Right to speedy trial under Article 21:The Supreme Court reiterated the right to a speedy trial as an integral part of Article 21, referencing previous judgments such as Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secy., State of Bihar and Abdul Rehman Antulay v. R.S. Nayak. It emphasized that a procedure depriving a person of liberty must ensure a speedy trial to be considered 'reasonable, fair, and just.'2. Rejection of bail application by the High Court:The appellant's bail application was initially rejected by the district court and subsequently by the High Court, which noted the appellant's alleged involvement in a drug network and the severity of the charges under the NDPS Act. The High Court directed the trial court to expedite the trial within six months.3. Applicability of Section 37 of the NDPS Act:Section 37 of the NDPS Act imposes stringent conditions for granting bail, requiring the court to be satisfied that the accused is 'not guilty' and would not commit any offence while on bail. The Supreme Court highlighted that a plain and literal interpretation of these conditions would effectively exclude bail altogether, leading to punitive and preventive detention. The court emphasized the need for a prima facie determination based on a reasonable reading of the material on record.4. Prolonged incarceration and its implications:The appellant had been in custody for over seven years, with the trial progressing slowly. The court noted that two co-accused had already been granted bail and that the appellant was relatively young at the time of arrest. The Supreme Court emphasized that prolonged incarceration without a speedy trial violates the fundamental right to life and liberty under Article 21. It also highlighted the adverse effects of unjust imprisonment, including 'prisonisation' and the potential for the prisoner to turn to crime.Conclusion:The Supreme Court directed the appellant to be enlarged on bail, subject to conditions imposed by the trial court, considering the prolonged incarceration and the slow progress of the trial. The appeal was allowed, emphasizing the need for a balance between individual liberty and public interest.