Supreme Court: Prosecuting Agencies Should Not Oppose Bail If They Can’t Ensure Speedy Trial

In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India criticized the National Investigating Agency (NIA) for delaying the trial in a case under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) of 1967. The Court emphasized that if the prosecuting agency cannot guarantee a speedy trial, they should not oppose bail applications on the grounds of the seriousness of the offense.

Historical Context

The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, was enacted to prevent unlawful activities and associations in India. Over the years, it has been amended multiple times to address evolving security challenges. However, the Act has often been criticized for its stringent provisions and potential for misuse, particularly concerning the prolonged detention of accused individuals without trial.

Key Observations by the Supreme Court

• Right to Speedy Trial: The Court reiterated that the right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which applies to all accused individuals, regardless of the crime’s nature.
• Bail as a Principle: The Court reminded lower courts that bail should not be withheld as a form of punishment. It cited several precedents, including:
  • Gudikanti Narasimhulu & Ors. v. Public Prosecutor (1978): Emphasized that bail should be granted if the accused’s presence at trial can be secured.
  • Gurbaksh Singh Sibba v. State of Punjab (1980): Reinforced the principle of granting bail.
  • Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar (1980): Declared the right to a speedy trial as part of Article 21.
  • Mohd. Muslim v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2023): Held that bail could be granted if there is undue delay in the trial, even under stringent statutes like the NDPS Act.
  • Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb (2021): Stated that UAPA does not prevent constitutional courts from granting bail due to long trial delays.

Case Details

• Case Title: Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh vs. The State of Maharashtra and Anr.
• Background: The accused had been in custody since February 2020 for allegedly smuggling counterfeit Indian currencies from Pakistan. Despite four years passing, the trial court had not framed charges, and the prosecution intended to examine at least 80 witnesses.
• Court’s Decision: The Supreme Court granted bail to the accused, highlighting that he is presumed innocent until proven guilty. The Court also stressed a humanistic approach to criminal justice, recognizing that socio-economic factors often drive individuals to commit crimes.

Summary

• The Supreme Court criticized the NIA for delaying trials under UAPA.
• Emphasized the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.
• Cited multiple precedents supporting the principle of granting bail.
• Highlighted the need for a humanistic approach to criminal justice.
• Granted bail to the accused, Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh, due to prolonged trial delays.

This ruling underscores the importance of upholding constitutional rights and ensuring timely justice, even in cases involving serious offenses.