9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (7) TMI 1113 - SC - Indian LawsRejection of bail - illegal trade of supplying counterfeit Indian currency notes in Nepal - High Court took the view that no cognizance could have been taken by the trial court against the appellant in the absence of any valid sanction of prosecution for the offence under Section 16 of the UAP Act - HELD THAT - It is trite law that an accused is entitled to a speedy trial. This Court in a catena of judgments has held that an accused or an undertrial has a fundamental right to speedy trial which is traceable to Article 21 of the Constitution of India. If the alleged offence is a serious one, it is all the more necessary for the prosecution to ensure that the trial is concluded expeditiously. When a trial gets prolonged, it is not open to the prosecution to oppose bail of the accused-undertrial on the ground that the charges are very serious. Bail cannot be denied only on the ground that the charges are very serious though there is no end in sight for the trial to conclude. In SHAHEEN WELFARE ASSOCIATION VERSUS UNION OF INDIA (UOI) AND ORS. 1996 (2) TMI 597 - SUPREME COURT , this Court was considering a public interest litigation wherein certain reliefs were sought for undertrial prisoners charged with offences under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (TADA Act) languishing in jail for considerable periods of time. This Court observed that while liberty of a citizen must be zealously safeguarded by the courts but, at the same time, in the context of stringent laws like the TADA Act, the interest of the victims and the collective interest of the community should also not be lost sight of. While balancing the competing interest, this Court observed that the ultimate justification for deprivation of liberty of an undertrial can only be on account of the accused-undertrial being found guilty of the offences for which he is charged and is being tried. If such a finding is not likely to be arrived at within a reasonable time, some relief(s) becomes necessary. Therefore, a pragmatic approach is required. This Court has, time and again, emphasized that right to life and personal liberty enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is overarching and sacrosanct. A constitutional court cannot be restrained from granting bail to an accused on account of restrictive statutory provisions in a penal statute if it finds that the right of the accused-undertrial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India has been infringed. In that event, such statutory restrictions would not come in the way. Even in the case of interpretation of a penal statute, howsoever stringent it may be, a constitutional court has to lean in favour of constitutionalism and the rule of law of which liberty is an intrinsic part. In the given facts of a particular case, a constitutional court may decline to grant bail. Appellant is directed to be released on bail subject to fulfilment of the conditions imposed - the impugned order is set aside - appeal disposed off.
Issues Involved:
1. Rejection of bail application by the High Court. 2. Long incarceration without trial conclusion. 3. Applicability and interpretation of Section 43D(5) of the UAP Act. 4. Right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 5. Conditions for granting bail to a foreign national. Detailed Analysis: 1. Rejection of Bail Application by the High Court: The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, rejected the bail application of the appellant on 03.04.2023. The appellant was charged under Sections 489B and 489C of the IPC and Section 16 of the UAP Act. The High Court noted the gravity of the charges and the risk of the appellant absconding due to his foreign nationality. Despite being in jail for eight years, the High Court denied bail, citing the serious nature of the charges and the potential flight risk. 2. Long Incarceration Without Trial Conclusion: The appellant has been in custody since 23.02.2015, amounting to over nine years. The trial has progressed slowly, with evidence from only two witnesses recorded. The Supreme Court emphasized that an accused is entitled to a speedy trial, a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Prolonged incarceration without trial conclusion cannot justify continued detention, especially when the trial is not likely to conclude soon. 3. Applicability and Interpretation of Section 43D(5) of the UAP Act: Section 43D(5) of the UAP Act imposes restrictions on granting bail to an accused under the Act. However, the Supreme Court noted that these restrictions do not oust the constitutional courts' ability to grant bail on grounds of violation of Part III of the Constitution. The Court highlighted that long incarceration and the unlikelihood of trial completion are valid grounds for granting bail, even under stringent provisions like Section 43D(5) of the UAP Act. 4. Right to a Speedy Trial Under Article 21 of the Constitution of India: The Supreme Court reiterated that the right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right under Article 21. The Court cited several precedents, including Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh Vs. State of Maharashtra and K.A. Najeeb, emphasizing that prolonged pre-trial detention infringes on this right. The Court held that the seriousness of the charges cannot be the sole ground for denying bail if the trial is indefinitely delayed. 5. Conditions for Granting Bail to a Foreign National: Given the appellant's foreign nationality, the Supreme Court imposed specific conditions to ensure his presence during the trial. These conditions include impounding the appellant's passport, restricting his movement within the trial court's jurisdiction, mandating regular attendance at the police station, and prohibiting tampering with evidence or threatening witnesses. The Court also referenced Frank Vitus Vs. Narcotics Control Bureau, stressing that bail conditions should not be so onerous as to frustrate the bail order itself. Conclusion: The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order dated 03.04.2023 and granted bail to the appellant, subject to specific conditions to mitigate the flight risk and ensure trial attendance. The Court emphasized the importance of the right to a speedy trial and the constitutional mandate to balance individual liberty with the seriousness of the charges. The appeal was disposed of with clear directives for the appellant's release on bail.
|
