In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court has reminded lower courts that bail should not be withheld as a form of punishment, emphasizing the fundamental right to speedy trial. The apex court made these observations while granting bail to Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh, an accused under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), who had been in custody for four years without charges being framed.
Case Background:
Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh was arrested on February 9, 2020, at Mumbai airport for allegedly possessing 1,193 counterfeit currency notes of Rs 2,000 denomination. The National Investigation Agency (NIA) took over the case, alleging that Shaikh had received the fake currency from an absconding accused in Dubai. He was charged under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and UAPA.
Legal Journey:
The Bombay High Court had earlier denied bail to Shaikh, citing the seriousness of the allegations and potential threat to the nation’s economy. Shaikh appealed this decision in the Supreme Court (Criminal Appeal No. 2787 of 2024, arising from SLP (Crl) No. 3809 of 2024).
Court’s Decision:
A bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan allowed Shaikh’s appeal and granted him bail, setting aside the High Court’s order. The court considered three key factors:
1. Shaikh’s four-year incarceration as an undertrial
2. The trial court’s failure to frame charges
3. The prosecution’s intent to examine 80 witnesses, indicating a prolonged trial
Key Observations:
Justice Pardiwala, writing for the bench, made several crucial observations:
1. “Over a period of time, the trial courts and the High Courts have forgotten a very well settled principle of law that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment.”
2. “Howsoever serious a crime may be, an accused has a right to speedy trial as enshrined under the Constitution of India.”
3. “If the State or any prosecuting agency including the court concerned has no wherewithal to provide or protect the fundamental right of an accused to have a speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution then the State or any other prosecuting agency should not oppose the plea for bail on the ground that the crime committed is serious.”
4. “We may hasten to add that the petitioner is still an accused; not a convict. The over-arching postulate of criminal jurisprudence that an accused is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty cannot be brushed aside lightly, howsoever stringent the penal law may be.”
Also Read
Legal Issues Addressed:
1. Right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution
2. Balancing stringent provisions of UAPA with constitutional rights
3. Prolonged incarceration without trial progress
4. Presumption of innocence until proven guilty
The court relied on previous judgments, including Gudikanti Narasimhulu v. Public Prosecutor (1978) and Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb (2021), to reinforce the principles of bail and speedy trial.
