Summary
An accused charged with counterfeit-currency offences and under the UAPA was granted bail after over nine years in custody and extremely slow trial progress. Section 43D(5) does not exclude constitutional bail jurisdiction where prolonged incarceration and delayed trial violate Article 21. Release was subject to surrender of identity documents, territorial restrictions, attendance at trial and fortnightly police reporting.
Issues
- Whether prolonged incarceration and delay in a UAPA trial warranted bail despite Section 43D(5).
- How the constitutional guarantee of speedy trial interacts with statutory bail restrictions and the accused’s foreign nationality.
Provisions considered
- Article 21, Constitution of IndiaIndefinite pre-trial detention and denial of a reasonably speedy trial justified constitutional intervention notwithstanding the seriousness of the accusations. (¶¶ 22, 27, 29, 32, 33)
- Section 43D(5), Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967The statutory restriction did not oust constitutional courts’ power to grant bail for violation of fundamental rights through prolonged custody and trial delay. (¶¶ 20.2, 27.2, 28, 29)
Held
- The accused had been in custody for over nine years. Only two witnesses had been examined as recorded in the impugned order, and no updated trial progress was furnished. The trial was unlikely to conclude within a reasonable time; continued custody was unjustified. (¶¶ 18, 19, 21, 33)
- Serious accusations cannot alone justify indefinite detention. The graver the charge, the greater the obligation to secure an expeditious trial; the presumption of innocence and Article 21 remain applicable. (¶¶ 22, 23, 23.1)
- Applying the three-Judge decision in K.A. Najeeb, Section 43D(5) and constitutional protection must be harmonised. Constitutional courts retain power to release an accused where lengthy detention and an unlikely early conclusion of trial violate fundamental rights. (¶¶ 27, 29, 32)
- Watali could not be read as an absolute prohibition on bail despite prolonged incarceration. Gurwinder Singh was distinguishable because the trial there had progressed substantially, unlike the present case. (¶¶ 27.2, 28, 31)
- Bail conditions must remain practical, proportionate and consistent with liberty. Foreign nationality does not justify insisting universally on an embassy assurance outside the accused’s control; arbitrary or impossible conditions cannot nullify release. (¶¶ 30, 30.1, 30.2, 30.3)
- The trial court must impound the passport and citizenship documents, obtaining them from the prosecution if necessary. The accused must remain within its territorial jurisdiction, furnish his address, attend every trial date, report fortnightly to the designated police station and refrain from tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses. Breach permits an application for cancellation. (¶ 34)
Result
High Court’s refusal of bail set aside; appellant directed to be released on bail on the conditions specified by the Supreme Court and to the satisfaction of the trial court. Appeal disposed of.