2024 (8) TMI 650 - SC - Indian Laws

Denial of bail and right to speedy trial: court applied day-to-day trial requirements and directed release on bail with conditions

Denial of bail was examined against the accuseds constitutional right to a speedy trial. The analysis emphasised the statutory mandate for day-to-day ... Denial to release the appellant on bail - right to speedy trial as enshrined under the Constitution of India - HELD THAT:- The requirement of law as being envisaged under Section 19 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 mandates that the trial under the Act of any offence by a Special Court shall be held on day-to-day basis on all working days and have precedence over the trial of any other case and Special Courts are to be designated for such an offence by the Central Government in consultation with the Chief Justice of the High Court as contemplated under Section 11 of the 2008. In the recent decision, SATENDER KUMAR ANTIL VERSUS CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION & ANR. [2022 (8) TMI 152 - SUPREME COURT], prolonged incarceration and inordinate delay engaged the attention of the court, which considered the correct approach towards bail, with respect to several enactments, including Section 37 NDPS Act. The court expressed the opinion that Section 436A (which requires inter alia the accused to be enlarged on bail if the trial is not concluded within specified periods) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 would apply. 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. The impugned order passed by the High Court is set aside - The appellant is ordered to be released on bail subject to the terms and conditions which the trial court may deem fit to impose - appeal allowed. Issues Involved:1. Denial of bail by the High Court.2. Prolonged incarceration of the appellant.3. Right to a speedy trial.4. Application of legal principles regarding bail.5. Impact of stringent bail conditions under special laws like UAPA.Detailed Analysis:1. Denial of Bail by the High Court:The appellant's request for bail was denied by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay on 5th February 2024 in Criminal Appeal No 1060 of 2023. The appellant was implicated under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA), and the High Court's order was challenged in this appeal.2. Prolonged Incarceration of the Appellant:The appellant has been in custody for over four years as an under-trial prisoner. The trial court has not yet framed charges, and the prosecution plans to examine no fewer than eighty witnesses. The Supreme Court noted the prolonged detention and the slow pace of the trial, questioning the timeline for its conclusion.3. Right to a Speedy Trial:The Supreme Court emphasized the constitutional right to a speedy trial, as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Court referenced several precedents, including Gudikanti Narasimhulu & Ors. v. Public Prosecutor, Gurbaksh Singh Sibba v. State of Punjab, and Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secy., State of Bihar, reiterating that bail should not be withheld as punishment and that a speedy trial is an integral part of the right to life and liberty.4. Application of Legal Principles Regarding Bail:The Court cited the principle that bail is to ensure the accused's attendance at trial and not as a punitive measure. In the case of prolonged trials, the denial of bail could lead to an unjust imprisonment, which was highlighted in Mohd Muslim @ Hussain v. State (NCT of Delhi). The Court also noted the statutory mandate under Section 19 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, requiring trials to be conducted on a day-to-day basis.5. Impact of Stringent Bail Conditions Under Special Laws Like UAPA:The Court acknowledged the stringent conditions for bail under UAPA but noted that these should not override constitutional rights. The Court referenced Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb, indicating that statutory restrictions do not preclude constitutional courts from granting bail on grounds of prolonged incarceration and violation of fundamental rights. The Court also referred to Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, emphasizing the need for expedited trials, especially under special laws.Conclusion:The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's order. The appellant was granted bail, subject to conditions imposed by the trial court, including not leaving Mumbai and marking presence at the NIA office or police station every fifteen days. The judgment underscored the importance of the right to a speedy trial and the principle that bail should not be used as a punitive measure. The Court's decision balanced the need for stringent bail conditions under special laws with the fundamental rights of the accused.