If Prosecuting Agency Can't Ensure Speedy Trial, They Shouldn't Oppose Bail Citing Seriousness Of Offence : Supreme Court

Chastising the National Investigating Agency for delaying the trial in a case under the draconian Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967, the Supreme Court stated that if the prosecuting agency cannot protect the right to speedy trial of an accused, then they cannot oppose his bail application on the ground that the offence was serious.

"Howsoever serious a crime may be, an accused has a right to speedy trial as enshrined under the Constitution of India," observed the Court while granting bail to a man, who has been under custody since February 2020 in a case over alleged smuggling of counterfeit Indian currencies from Pakistan.

The Court underscored that the right to speedy trial, as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India, applies to all accused irrespective of the nature of the crime. The bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and Ujjal Bhuyan, hearing an appeal filed by the accused against the judgment of the Bombay High Court denying him bail, 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."

Criticism of Trial Delays

The Court also lamented that 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 cited various precedents - Gudikanti Narasimhulu & Ors. v. Public Prosecutor, High Court reported in (1978) 1 SCC 240, Gurbaksh Singh Sibba v. State of Punjab reported in (1980) 2 SCC 565 - which emphasise that the bail is to be granted if the presence of the accused at the trial can be secured.

The judgment in Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secy., State of Bihar reported in (1980) 1 SCC 81, which declared that right to speedy trial was a part of Article 21, was also cited.

Reference was made to the recent judgment in Mohd. Muslim v. State (NCT of Delhi) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 260 which held that bail can be granted if there is undue delay in trial regardless of the stringent provisions of special statutes like NDPS Act. The judgment in Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb (2021), which held that UAPA does not bar constitutonal courts from granting bail on the ground of long delay in trial was also relied upon.

The Court also noted that Section 19 of the NIA Act 2008 mandated that trials should be held on a day-to-day basis.

In the instant case, the Court observed that the manner in which the NIA(Prosecuting Agency) and the trial court handled the proceedings resulted in the infringement of the right to speedy trial of the accused. It was noted that the trial court has not even framed the charges, despite the passage of four year. Since the prosecution intended to examine at least 80 witnesses, the Court wondered by when the trial would actually conclude.

"We may hasten to add that the petitioner is still an accused; not a convict. 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," the Court said.

Humanistic Approach to Criminal Justice

Advocating a humanistic approach towards criminals keeping in mind the fact that most crimes are products of socio-economic circumstances, the Court further stated :

"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."

The Court allowed the appeal and granted bail to the appellant subject to the terms and conditions to be fixed by the trial court.

Case Title : JAVED GULAM NABI SHAIKH Versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR | SLP(Crl) No. 3809/2024