Supreme Court Criticizes NIA for Delaying Trial, Grants Bail Under Article 21

July 30, 2024

The Supreme Court reprimanded the National Investigation Agency (NIA) for delaying the trial in a case under the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. The Court emphasized that if the prosecuting agency cannot uphold the right to a speedy trial, they should not oppose a bail application based solely on the seriousness of the offense.

“Regardless of the severity of the crime, an accused has a constitutional right to a speedy trial,” the Court noted while granting bail to a man who had been in custody since February 2020 for allegedly smuggling counterfeit Indian currency from Pakistan.

The Court emphasized that the right to a speedy trial, guaranteed under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, applies to all accused individuals, regardless of the nature of the crime. The bench, comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and Ujjal Bhuyan, heard an appeal from the accused challenging the Bombay High Court’s decision to deny bail. The Court stated:

“If the State or any prosecuting agency, including the concerned court, lacks the resources to ensure or protect an accused’s fundamental right to a speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution, then they should not oppose a bail plea based on the seriousness of the crime. Article 21 of the Constitution applies irrespective of the nature of the crime.”

CRITICISM OF TRIAL DELAY

The Court expressed concern that trial courts and High Courts seem to have overlooked a well-established principle of law: bail should not be withheld as a form of punishment.

The Court referenced several precedents, including Gudikanti Narasimhulu & Ors. v. Public Prosecutor, High Court (1978) 1 SCC 240, and Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 565, which stress that bail should be granted if the presence of the accused at the trial can be assured.

The Court also cited the landmark judgment in Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar (1980) 1 SCC 81, which established that the right to a speedy trial is an integral part of Article 21 of the Constitution.

Further reference was made to the recent judgment in Mohd. Muslim v. State (NCT of Delhi) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 260, which held that bail could be granted in cases of undue trial delays, even under stringent statutes like the NDPS Act. The judgment in Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb (2021), which affirmed that the UAPA does not prevent constitutional courts from granting bail due to prolonged trial delays, was also relied upon.

The Court also pointed out that Section 19 of the NIA Act 2008 mandates that trials should be conducted on a day-to-day basis.

In this case, the Court noted that the manner in which the NIA (the prosecuting agency) and the trial court conducted the proceedings led to a violation of the accused’s right to a speedy trial. It was observed that the trial court had not even framed charges despite four years having passed. Considering that the prosecution intended to examine at least 80 witnesses, the Court questioned when the trial would actually conclude.

“We must emphasize that the petitioner is still an accused, not a convict. The fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that an accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty cannot be dismissed lightly, no matter how stringent the penal law may be,” the Court stated.

HUMANISTIC APPROACH TO CRIMINAL JUSTICE

Emphasizing a compassionate approach towards individuals accused of crimes, the Court acknowledged that many crimes arise from socio-economic circumstances. The Court stated:

“Criminals are not born but made. Everyone has the potential for good, and we should never consider any criminal as irredeemable. This humanistic principle is often overlooked when dealing with delinquents, whether juvenile or adult. Indeed, every saint has a past, and every sinner has a future. When a crime is committed, various factors contribute to the offender’s actions. These factors may include social and economic conditions, value erosion, parental neglect, the pressures of circumstances, or the temptations presented by a stark contrast between affluence and poverty.”

The Court allowed the appeal and granted bail to the appellant, subject to the terms and conditions set by the trial court.

Posted and reproduced in Public Interest by

Adv. Sulaiman Bhimani Legal Consultant

Expert in RERA & Consumer Matters, Co-operative Scty Matters,

Deem Conveyance, Family Matters, and Property Disputes.

Human and Civil Rights Campaigner

President Citizens Justice Forum https://citizensjusticeforum.in