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 ensure a speedy trial, they should not oppose the bail application of the accused 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 to address evolving security challenges, but it has also faced criticism for its stringent provisions and potential for misuse. The right to a speedy trial is enshrined in Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees the protection of life and personal liberty.

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 Constitution, applicable to all accused, regardless of the crime’s nature.
• Criticism of Trial Delays: The Court criticized trial courts and High Courts for forgetting the principle 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 the trial can be secured.
  • Gurbaksh Singh Sibba v. State of Punjab (1980): Reinforced the principle of granting bail.
  • Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secy., 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 can 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 bar constitutional courts from granting bail due to long trial delays.
• NIA Act 2008: The Court noted that Section 19 of the NIA Act mandates day-to-day trials, which was not followed in this case.

Case Details

In the case of Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh versus the State of Maharashtra, the accused had been in custody since February 2020 for allegedly smuggling counterfeit Indian currencies from Pakistan. The trial court had not framed charges even after four years, and the prosecution intended to examine at least 80 witnesses, leading the Court to question the trial’s conclusion timeline.

Humanistic Approach to Criminal Justice

The Court advocated for a humanistic approach towards criminals, recognizing that most crimes result from socio-economic circumstances. It emphasized that criminals are not inherently evil but are shaped by various factors, including social and economic conditions, parental neglect, and stress.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and granted bail to the appellant, subject to terms and conditions set by the trial court.

Summary in Bullet Points

• Supreme Court Ruling: Criticized NIA for trial delays under UAPA 1967.
• Right to Speedy Trial: Fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution.
• Criticism of Trial Delays: Cited precedents emphasizing the principle of granting bail.
• NIA Act 2008: Mandates day-to-day trials, not followed in this case.
• Case Details: Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh in custody since February 2020; trial delayed.
• Humanistic Approach: Recognized socio-economic factors in criminal behavior.
• Conclusion: Bail granted to the appellant with conditions set by the trial court.

This ruling underscores the importance of upholding constitutional rights and ensuring timely justice, especially in cases involving stringent laws like UAPA.