On Thursday, the Supreme Court emphasized that despite the severity of criminal laws, denying bail indefinitely is not permissible. The court reaffirmed the critical significance of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which protects the rights to life and liberty, including the right to a speedy trial.
“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 a particular case, a constitutional court may decline to grant bail. But it would be very wrong to say that under a particular statute, bail cannot be granted. It would run counter to the very grain of our constitutional jurisprudence,” said a bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and Ujjal Bhuyan.
Emphasizing that the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution is “overarching and sacrosanct”, the bench observed that a constitutional court cannot be prevented from granting bail to an accused due to stringent provisions in a criminal law statute if it determines that the accused’s rights under Article 21 have been violated.
The court’s decision came as it approved bail for Sheikh Javed Iqbal, who had been in prison for nine years on charges related to possessing counterfeit currency under the Indian Penal Code and Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. Notably, section 43D(5) of the UAPA sets a high threshold for bail, making it difficult for the accused to secure release. According to this provision, bail shall not be granted if the court, after examining the case diary or charge sheet, finds reasonable grounds to believe that the accusations against the person are likely true.
Drawing from a series of Supreme Court rulings, the apex court notably referenced the KA Najeeb case of 2012, which dealt with prolonged detention without trial. In that landmark judgment, the Supreme Court affirmed that Section 43D(5) of the UAPA does not restrict the constitutional courts from granting bail based on violations of fundamental rights. The court emphasized that extended incarceration with little prospect of a speedy trial constitutes valid grounds for granting bail.
“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. 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,” held the court on Thursday.
This ruling underscores the principle that denying bail indefinitely is impermissible, irrespective of the severity of penal laws. The bench underscored the fundamental significance of personal liberty and the importance of expeditious trials when granting bail to Iqbal, who has been detained in a Uttar Pradesh prison since February 23, 2015. On April 4, the Allahabad High Court had declined Iqbal’s bail plea, noting “the charges levelled against him are grave and a serious threat to the society and to the extent that it may topple the economy of the country.”
It was also pointed out that Iqbal is a citizen of Nepal and lacks a permanent address in India, which would complicate the prosecution’s task of ensuring his attendance at trial if he were released on bail.
In its ruling on Thursday, the bench observed that Iqbal’s trial had progressed “at a snail’s pace” with only two witnesses examined so far. “Thus, it is evident that the trial would not be concluded in the near future,” stated the bench, directing Iqbal’s release on bail under the condition that his passport remains with the trial court and he appears for the proceedings.
Addressing concerns over prolonged pre-trial detention that may infringe upon constitutional rights, the Supreme Court made a significant pronouncement on Thursday. It asserted that denying bail indefinitely, regardless of the seriousness of the alleged offense, cannot be justified if it results in prolonged deprivation of an individual’s freedom. The judgment underscores the importance of balancing the enforcement of criminal laws with the protection of fundamental rights and calls for urgent reforms to tackle delays in the judicial process.
ALSO READ: Uttar Pradesh Train Tragedy: Chandigarh-Dibrugarh Express Derails in Gonda-Mankapur Section
