Introduction:
In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court chastised the National Investigating Agency (NIA) for delaying the trial in a case under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) of 1967. The court granted bail to Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh, who had been in custody since February 2020 for allegedly smuggling counterfeit Indian currencies from Pakistan. The bench, comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and Ujjal Bhuyan, highlighted the fundamental right to a speedy trial enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. This ruling underscores the judiciary’s commitment to upholding constitutional rights irrespective of the crime’s severity.
Arguments of Both Sides:
The petitioner, Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh, argued through his counsel that his right to a speedy trial had been grossly violated, as he had been languishing in custody for over four years without charges being framed. Shaikh’s counsel cited several precedents, including the landmark judgment in Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, which declared that the right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. They argued that the NIA and the trial court’s handling of the case had resulted in an undue delay, thereby infringing upon Shaikh’s constitutional rights.
The petitioner also referenced the recent judgment in Mohd. Muslim v. State (NCT of Delhi), which held that bail could be granted if there was an undue delay in the trial, regardless of the stringent provisions of special statutes like the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act. Furthermore, the petitioner’s counsel relied on the judgment in Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb, which held that the UAPA does not bar constitutional courts from granting bail on the grounds of long trial delays.
Shaikh’s counsel emphasized that the trial court had not even framed charges despite the passage of four years, and the prosecution intended to examine at least 80 witnesses. This, they argued, would further prolong the trial, making it imperative to grant bail to the accused to prevent further infringement of his rights. The petitioner contended that bail should not be withheld as a form of punishment and that the court must ensure that the presence of the accused at the trial can be secured through less restrictive means.
The respondents, representing the State of Maharashtra and the NIA, argued that the seriousness of the offense warranted continued detention. They contended that Shaikh was involved in smuggling counterfeit Indian currencies from Pakistan, a grave offense under the UAPA. The respondents emphasized that the UAPA was enacted to combat serious threats to national security and that granting bail to individuals accused under this Act could undermine its effectiveness.
The respondents argued that the right to a speedy trial should not override the necessity of ensuring national security and public safety. They contended that the delay in the trial was not entirely attributable to the prosecuting agency but was also due to procedural complexities and the need for thorough investigation. The respondents further argued that releasing the accused on bail could pose a risk of absconding or tampering with evidence, given the serious nature of the crime.
In their defense, the respondents cited various judgments that emphasized the need to balance individual rights with broader public interests. They argued that while the right to a speedy trial is fundamental, it must be considered in the context of the specific circumstances of each case. The respondents maintained that the gravity of the offense justified the continued detention of the accused to ensure the integrity of the trial process.
Court’s Judgment:
The Supreme Court, after considering the arguments presented by both sides, granted bail to Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh. The bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and Ujjal Bhuyan underscored the fundamental right to a speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The court observed that if the prosecuting agency cannot protect this right, they cannot oppose a bail application on the ground of the offense’s seriousness.
The court lamented that trial courts and High Courts had forgotten the well-settled principle that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment. The bench cited various precedents, including Gudikanti Narasimhulu & Ors. v. Public Prosecutor and Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, which emphasized that bail should be granted if the presence of the accused at the trial can be secured. The judgment in Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, which declared the right to a speedy trial as part of Article 21, was also referenced.
The court further noted that Section 19 of the NIA Act 2008 mandated that trials should be held on a day-to-day basis. In Shaikh’s case, the court observed that the trial court had not even framed charges despite the passage of four years. With the prosecution intending to examine at least 80 witnesses, the court questioned when the trial would actually conclude.
The court emphasized that Shaikh was still an accused, not a convict, and the overarching postulate of criminal jurisprudence is that an accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty. This presumption cannot be brushed aside lightly, irrespective of the stringent penal law. The court advocated a humanistic approach to criminal justice, recognizing that most crimes result from socio-economic circumstances and that offenders are not beyond redemption.
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and granted bail to Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh, subject to the terms and conditions to be fixed by the trial court. This decision reaffirms the judiciary’s commitment to upholding constitutional rights and ensuring that the legal system remains just and humane.