Supreme Court: In a criminal appeal against decision of Allahabad High Court, wherein the bail application of the accused person/ appellant for offences under Sections 489-B and 489-C of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) and under Section 16 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (‘UAPA’) was dismissed, the Division Bench of JB Pardiwala and Ujjal Bhuyan*, JJ. taking note of nine long years of imprisonment and following Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb (2021) SCC Online SC 50 set aside the impugned decision and directed to release the accused on bail.
Factual Matrix
The First Information Report (‘FIR’) was lodged against the accused person by the informant Inspector under Sections 121-A, 489-B and 489-C of the IPC. Informant stated that fake Indian currency notes of the denomination of Rs. 1,000 and Rs. 500, totalling a sum of Rs. 26,03,500/- were recovered from the possession of the accused from the Indo- Nepal border. According to the police, accused had confessed that he was engaged in the illegal trade of supplying counterfeit Indian currency notes in Nepal. The accused was arrested on 23-02-2015 and moved a bail application before the Trial Court but the same was rejected on 24-08-2016. The bail application before the High Court was also dismissed by the impugned order.
Analysis and Decision
The accused was in jail since 23-02-2015, i.e., nine years had passed and evidence of only two witnesses was recorded. The Court said that accused is facing charges under Section 489-B of IPC and under Section 16 of the UAPA which carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment, if convicted. On the other hand, the maximum sentence under Section 489-C of IPC is 7 years. However, as the trial is proceeding at a snail’s pace, it is evident that the trial would not be concluded in the near future.
The Court reiterated that an accused is entitled to a speedy trial and 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. The Court stated that the 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.
The Court relied on Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1693, a case where fake counterfeit Indian currency notes were seized from the accused-appellant, and therein it was held that howsoever serious a crime may be, an accused has the right to speedy trial under the Constitution of India. The Court referred to Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee (Representing Undertrial Prisoners) v. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 731, wherein, it was laid down that, in respect of undertrials who were foreigners, the Special Judge should impound their passports besides insisting on a certificate of assurance from the concerned Embassy/High Commission of the country to which the foreigner accused belonged and that such accused should not leave the country and should appear before the Special Court as required.
Further, referring to K.A. Najeeb (supra), the Court agreed with reasoning given in K.A. Najeeb (supra) regarding the NIA v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali, (2019) 5 SCC 1, decision, that the High Court had virtually conducted a mini trial and determined admissibility of certain evidence which clearly exceeded the limited scope of a bail proceeding. Not only was it beyond the statutory mandate of prima-facie assessment under Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA, it was premature and possibly would have prejudiced the trial as well. The Court clarified that the decision in Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali (supra) is to be read and understood in the context in which it was rendered and not as a precedent to deny bail to an accused- undertrial suffering long incarceration with no end in sight of the criminal trial.
The Court also reiterated that Courts cannot impose freakish conditions while granting bail, conditions of bail must be consistent with the object of granting bail. While imposing bail conditions, the constitutional rights of an accused who is ordered to be released on bail can be curtailed only to the minimum extent required. 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. 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.
Hence, the Court granted bail to the present accused and set aside the impugned decision of the High Court. The Court directed to release him on bail subject to fulfilment of the following conditions:
- Trial Court shall impound his passport and/or citizenship documents.
- If those are in the custody of the prosecution, those shall be handed over to the trial Court.
- He shall not leave the territorial jurisdiction of the Trial Court; he shall furnish his address to the Trial Court.
- He shall appear before the Trial Court on each and every date of the trial.
- He shall mark his attendance before the police station which the Trial Court may indicate once in every fortnight till conclusion of the trial.
-
He shall not tamper with the evidence and shall not threaten the witnesses.
[Sheikh Javed Iqbal v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1755, Decided on: 18-07-2024]
*Judgment Authored by: Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
