Summary
Bail was granted in a UAPA prosecution after four years of pretrial custody, with charges still unframed and at least eighty witnesses proposed. The Court held that statutory severity could not justify continued detention where the constitutional right to speedy trial was infringed. Release was subject to trial-court conditions, remaining within Mumbai and reporting fortnightly to the NIA or police.
Issues
- Whether prolonged custody without framing of charges warranted bail despite a serious UAPA prosecution.
- How statutory bail restrictions interact with the constitutional right to speedy trial.
Provisions considered
- Article 21, Constitution of IndiaThe accused’s right to reasonably prompt trial had been infringed by four years of custody before charge-framing with a lengthy trial ahead. Seriousness of allegations could not justify further detention as punishment. (¶¶ 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 19, 20, 21)
- Section 43D(5), Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967Following K.A. Najeeb, statutory restrictions do not oust constitutional courts’ power to grant bail for fundamental-rights violations where timely trial is not realistically available. (¶¶ 16, 19, 21)
- Section 19, National Investigation Agency Act, 2008The requirement of day-to-day, priority Special Court trial reinforced the need for expedition rather than prolonged pretrial incarceration. (¶ 15)
Held
- The appellant had spent four years in custody without even charges being framed, while the prosecution proposed at least eighty witnesses. There was no realistic assurance of early completion. These circumstances warranted release on bail and established violation of the right to speedy trial. (¶¶ 3, 7, 8, 21)
- Bail secures attendance at trial and must not be withheld as punishment. Serious allegations do not displace the presumption of innocence or Article 21, which applies irrespective of the nature of the crime. The State cannot rely solely on seriousness while failing to provide a reasonably prompt trial. (¶¶ 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 19, 20)
- Stringent special-law restrictions must be read with constitutional protection of liberty. The presence of Section 43D(5) does not prevent constitutional courts from granting bail where prolonged detention and no likelihood of completion within reasonable time infringe Part III rights. The NIA Act itself contemplates priority day-to-day trial. (¶¶ 14, 15, 16, 17, 21)
- The High Court order refusing bail was set aside. The trial court may impose lawful conditions, but the appellant must remain within Mumbai city and report to the concerned NIA office or police station once every fifteen days. (¶¶ 22, 23)
Result
Appeal allowed; bail refusal set aside. Appellant to be released on trial-court conditions, remain within Mumbai and report to the concerned NIA office or police station every fifteen days.