Bail – Denial – When not justified – Constitution of India – Article
21 – Right to speedy trial – Applicability of, irrespective of the seriousness of crime – Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 – Penal Code, 1860 – ss.489B, 489C, 120B, 34 – National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 – s.19 – Fake counterfeit Indian currency notes seized from the appellant-accused – In custody as an under-trial prisoner for four years – Bail denied: Held: Bail is not to be withheld as a punishment – 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 u/Article 21, then it should not oppose the plea for bail on the ground that the crime committed is serious – Howsoever serious a crime may be, an accused has a right to speedy trial – Article 21 applies irrespective of the nature of the crime – Petitioner is still an accused and not a convict – He has been in jail as an under-trial prisoner for four years – No charges have been framed till date – There are around eighty witnesses to be examined, no clarity as to when the trial will ultimately conclude – 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 – Right of the accused to have a speedy trial was infringed thereby violating Article 21 – Impugned order passed by the High Court set aside – Appellant granted bail. [Paras 7, 8, 9, 19-21, 22, 23] Criminal Law – Humanist approach towards delinquents – Need for – Discussed. [Para 18]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.