New Delhi, July 3, 2024 – In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court of India ruled that prosecuting agencies should not oppose bail on the grounds of the seriousness of the offence if they cannot ensure a speedy trial. The decision was rendered in the case of Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr., Criminal Appeal No. 2787 of 2024, by a bench comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ujjal Bhuyan.
Case Background
The appellant, Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh, had been in custody for over four years without the trial progressing to the framing of charges. He was apprehended by Mumbai Police on February 9, 2020, at Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj International Airport with 1,193 counterfeit Indian currency notes of the denomination of Rs 2,000. Following his arrest, the National Investigation Agency (NIA) took over the investigation, and a case was registered under multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA).
Legal Issues Addressed
The primary legal issue addressed by the Supreme Court was the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Court scrutinized the prolonged incarceration of the appellant and the prosecution’s inability to proceed with the trial, which had not even reached the stage of framing charges after four years.
Court’s Analysis and Decision
Justice Pardiwala, delivering the judgment, emphasized that the right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right under Article 21. The Court noted that despite the seriousness of the crime, the accused’s right to a timely trial could not be compromised. The bench highlighted several key points:
1. Prolonged Incarceration: The appellant had been jailed for over four years as an under-trial prisoner without significant progress in the trial.
2. Delay in Trial: The trial court had not framed charges, and the prosecution planned to examine at least eighty witnesses, further extending the trial period.
3. Constitutional Rights: The Court reiterated that bail should not be withheld as a punishment and that the accused’s right to a speedy trial is paramount.
The Court cited previous judgments reinforcing the right to a speedy trial, including Gudikanti Narasimhulu vs. Public Prosecutor, Hussainara Khatoon vs. Home Secy., State of Bihar, and Mohd Muslim @ Hussain vs. State (NCT of Delhi). The Court also referenced the NIA Act, 2008, which mandates that trials should be conducted on a day-to-day basis to ensure prompt conclusion.
Outcome
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order denying bail and granted bail to the appellant, subject to conditions. The appellant is required to remain within Mumbai city limits and mark his presence at the NIA office or police station every fifteen days. The trial court may impose additional conditions as deemed fit.
This judgment underscores the judiciary’s commitment to upholding the constitutional right to a speedy trial, emphasizing that the gravity of the offence cannot override an accused’s fundamental rights. The ruling sends a clear message to prosecuting agencies and lower courts about the importance of ensuring timely justice.
Case Reference:
– Parties: Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr.
– Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 2787 of 2024
– Judgment Date: July 3, 2024
– Judges: Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
