Supreme Court Grants Bail in UAPA Case: Upholding the Right to Speedy Trial

The Supreme Court of India has ruled in favor of granting bail to Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh, who had been in custody for over four years without trial under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA). The case highlights the fundamental right to a speedy trial and the principle that bail should not be withheld as a form of punishment.

Background of the Case

The case arose when the appellant, Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh, was arrested on February 9, 2020, at Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj International Airport, Mumbai. The Mumbai Police’s Crime Branch Unit apprehended him based on secret information and recovered 1,193 counterfeit Indian currency notes of Rs. 2,000 denomination from his possession. Consequently, an FIR was registered at Sahar Police Station under Sections 489B, 489C, 120B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The prosecution alleged that the counterfeit notes were smuggled from Pakistan to Mumbai and that the appellant had obtained them during his visit to Dubai on February 6, 2020. The investigation was later transferred to the National Investigation Agency (NIA), which charged the appellant under the stringent UAPA.

Legal Issues Before the Supreme Court

Whether prolonged incarceration without trial violated the fundamental right to a speedy trial.
Whether bail should be denied based on the severity of the alleged offense.
Whether the presumption of innocence and the inability to complete the trial in a reasonable timeframe warranted bail.

Arguments by the Petitioner

The petitioner, represented by his legal counsel, raised the following key arguments:

The appellant had been in jail as an undertrial prisoner for more than four years, yet charges had not even been framed.
The prosecution planned to examine at least 80 witnesses, making the trial’s completion in a reasonable time highly unlikely.
The appellant’s co-accused had already been granted bail.
Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees the right to a speedy trial, and keeping the appellant in jail indefinitely violated this fundamental right.

Arguments by the Respondent (State of Maharashtra and NIA)

The prosecution, representing the State and NIA, countered the bail plea with the following arguments:

The offense was of serious nature, involving the smuggling of counterfeit currency.
The appellant’s role in procuring and transporting the fake currency was evident from the investigation.
The case was being pursued under UAPA, which imposes stricter conditions for granting bail.
The prosecution required additional time to complete the trial and examine all witnesses.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court made critical observations regarding the right to a speedy trial and the fundamental principles governing bail in India.

1. The Right to a Speedy Trial

The Court emphasized that prolonged incarceration without trial is unconstitutional. It cited previous judgments, including Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar (1980), where it was held that an unreasonable delay in trial violates Article 21 of the Constitution.

2. Bail Should Not Be Withheld as Punishment

The Court reiterated that bail should not be denied as a form of punishment, referencing Gudikanti Narasimhulu v. Public Prosecutor (1978), which stressed that bail should only be denied if necessary to secure the accused’s presence at trial.

3. Burden of Proof and Presumption of Innocence

The Court observed that despite the serious nature of the offense, the appellant remained an undertrial prisoner. The presumption of innocence should weigh in favor of bail, particularly when delays in prosecution prevent the completion of the trial within a reasonable timeframe.

4. Lack of Progress in the Trial

The Court noted that the trial court had not framed charges despite four years having passed since the appellant’s arrest. Given that the prosecution planned to examine 80 witnesses, the trial was expected to take even longer.

Final Judgment

Considering all aspects, the Supreme Court ruled:

The prolonged incarceration of the appellant without trial violated his fundamental rights.
The failure to frame charges within four years and the prosecution’s plan to examine numerous witnesses made the timely completion of the trial unlikely.
The appellant’s right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution had been infringed.
Bail was granted with conditions, including restrictions on travel outside Mumbai and mandatory periodic appearances at the NIA office.

Implications of the Judgment

This landmark judgment reinforces the constitutional principles surrounding bail and the right to a speedy trial. It sends a strong message to lower courts and law enforcement agencies that prolonged detention without trial is unacceptable.

The ruling aligns with prior Supreme Court decisions that stress the importance of balancing national security concerns with fundamental rights. By granting bail despite the severity of charges under UAPA, the Court has upheld the principle that an accused is innocent until proven guilty and should not suffer indefinite incarceration due to procedural delays.

Petitioner Name: Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh.
Respondent Name: State of Maharashtra and Another.
Judgment By: Justice J B Pardiwala, Justice Ujjal Bhuyan.
Place Of Incident: Mumbai, Maharashtra.
Judgment Date: 03-07-2024.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: javed-gulam-nabi-sha-vs-state-of-maharashtra-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-03-07-2024.pdf

Directly Download Judgment: Directly download this Judgment

See all petitions in Bail and Anticipatory Bail
See all petitions in Custodial Deaths and Police Misconduct
See all petitions in Terrorist Activities
See all petitions in Fraud and Forgery
See all petitions in Attempt to Murder Cases
See all petitions in Judgment by J.B. Pardiwala
See all petitions in Judgment by Ujjal Bhuyan
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Quashed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments July 2024
See all petitions in 2024 judgments

See all posts in Criminal Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category