Introduction:

In the matter of Nurul Islam & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan, the Rajasthan High Court underscored the extension of fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution to foreign nationals, while reprimanding the trial court for failing to frame charges and commence trial despite the petitioners being in custody for over one and a half years. The petitioners, foreign nationals and residents of Bangladesh, were in judicial custody since April 23, 2024, in connection with an FIR alleging illegal kidney transplantation and human trafficking. While the petitioners had cooperated with the investigation and become approvers, providing statements that led to the arrest of other co-accused, the principal accused had already secured regular bail, yet the petitioners remained in custody without charges being framed or trial commencing. Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand observed that such prolonged inaction by the trial court violated the petitioners’ fundamental right to a speedy trial, guaranteed under Article 21, which encompasses the right to life and personal liberty. The Court clarified that the protections under Article 21 extend to all persons, including foreign nationals, emphasizing that citizenship is not a prerequisite for the enforcement of this right. The judgment highlighted the critical importance of timely judicial processes, particularly where accused persons are in prolonged custody, and directed the trial court to urgently fix dates for framing of charges and recording of statements, while also balancing the legal requirement under Section 306(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) regarding approvers.

Arguments of the Petitioners:

The petitioners, represented in the matter, contended that their prolonged detention without trial constituted a clear violation of their fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. They argued that they had been in custody since April 23, 2024, amounting to more than eighteen months without charges being framed, which was unreasonable and unjust. The petitioners emphasized that they had cooperated with the investigation, providing statements that helped secure the arrest of other co-accused and assisted in the investigation of the kidney transplantation and human trafficking racket. As approvers, they contended that they should not be penalized by unnecessary delay in judicial proceedings. Their counsel further highlighted that the trial court had continuously deferred proceedings by entertaining irrelevant or unwanted requests, effectively stalling the framing of charges and commencement of trial. They asserted that their continued incarceration without trial not only aggravated mental and emotional trauma but also violated the principles of natural justice and the constitutional mandate under Article 21 guaranteeing personal liberty and dignity. The petitioners urged the High Court to direct the trial court to immediately frame charges and prioritize recording of their statements, ensuring that the remainder of the judicial process proceeded expeditiously. The overarching argument was that extended pre-trial detention, especially when the petitioners were approvers cooperating with the authorities, was disproportionate, arbitrary, and legally indefensible.

Arguments of the State:

The State, in response, submitted that under Section 306(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code, approvers are required to remain in judicial custody until their statements are recorded or the trial concludes. The State contended that the petitioners, being approvers in a serious criminal case involving illegal kidney transplantation and human trafficking, could not be released on bail prematurely, as their statements were crucial for the completion of investigation and prosecution of other accused. The State relied on the decision of a larger bench of the Rajasthan High Court in Noor Taki alias Mammu v. State of Rajasthan, which clarified that approvers must remain in custody until their statements are duly recorded, and such detention is legally justified. It was argued that the petitioners’ continued incarceration was not a result of inaction but was aligned with statutory obligations, and premature release could compromise the investigation and trial process. The State further contended that while the right to speedy trial is recognized under Article 21, it must be balanced against procedural safeguards and the interests of justice, particularly in complex criminal investigations where approvers’ statements are pivotal. Consequently, the State maintained that the petitioners’ plea for bail could not be granted until the procedural requirement of recording their statements was satisfied, though it did not oppose the High Court ensuring expeditious framing of charges and prioritization of trial proceedings.

Court’s Judgment:

Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand, while hearing the matter, reiterated that fundamental rights under Article 21, including the right to life, dignity, and personal liberty, extend to all persons within the territory of India, irrespective of their nationality. The Court strongly criticized the trial court for allowing unnecessary delays in framing charges and commencing the trial despite the petitioners being in custody since April 2024. The Court observed that the trial court had, over a period exceeding eighteen months, entertained irrelevant or peripheral requests from parties, causing undue postponements, which was not justified given the material facts and urgency of the matter. The High Court clarified that prolonged pre-trial detention, especially for approvers cooperating with investigation, could amount to a violation of Article 21, underscoring that such detention must be reasonable, justifiable, and within the statutory and constitutional framework. Balancing the legal provisions, the Court noted that under Section 306(4) Cr.P.C., approvers cannot be released on bail until their statements are recorded, citing Noor Taki alias Mammu v. State of Rajasthan as precedent. Therefore, while the Court declined to grant immediate bail to the petitioners, it directed the trial court to urgently frame charges and schedule the recording of statements within a period of four weeks. The judgment emphasized that judicial inaction or delays cannot be condoned, particularly when fundamental rights of individuals, including foreign nationals, are at stake. By issuing these directions, the Court sought to ensure that procedural requirements under the Cr.P.C. were met while safeguarding the constitutional right to speedy trial, personal liberty, and dignity, thereby preventing arbitrary detention and ensuring expeditious progress of criminal proceedings.