Brief Facts
- An FIR was lodged against the appellant/accused by the informant inspector under Sections 121A, 489B, and 489C of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 16 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA). It was alleged that fake Indian currency notes of the denomination of Rs. 1,000 and Rs. 500/-, totalling a sum of Rs. 26,03,500/- were recovered from the Appellant’s possession in 2015 from the Indo-Nepal Border. He was apprehended by a constable and additionally, one Nepalese driving license of the appellant and one Nepalese citizenship certificate of him were also recovered besides two mobile phones. As per the police, the Appellant confessed that he was engaged in the illegal trade of supplying counterfeit Indian currency notes in Nepal. As a result, he was arrested. He moved a bail application before the Trial Court but the same was rejected.
- Thereafter, he filed bail application before the Single Judge of the High Court but the same was also dismissed. Challenging the same, he approached the Apex Court.
Issues
- Whether a Constitutional Court can grant bail notwithstanding restrictive statutory provisions, if the fundamental rights of the accused are found to be infringed?
- Whether the High Court erred in rejecting the appellant’s bail application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. despite his prolonged detention without trial?
- Whether the sanction for prosecution under Section 16 of the UAPA is valid in the absence of an independent review of evidence as mandated under Section 45(2) of the UAPA?
- Whether the High Court’s quashing of charges under the UAPA affects the continuation of the trial against the appellant under Sections 489B and 489C of the IPC?
Held
- The Hon’ble Supreme Court allowed the Appeal and released the Appellant on bail. The findings of the Court are as under:
- It is trite law that an accused is entitled to a speedy trial. This Court in a catena of judgments has held that an accused or an undertrial has a fundamental right to speedy trial which is traceable to Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 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.
- This Court has, time and again, emphasized that right to life and personal liberty enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is overarching and sacrosanct. A constitutional court cannot be restrained from granting bail to an accused on account of restrictive statutory provisions in a penal statute if it finds that the right of the accused-undertrial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India has been infringed. In that event, such statutory restrictions would not come in the way. Even 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 the given facts of 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. In any view of the matter, K.A. Najeeb (supra) being rendered by a three Judge Bench is binding on a Bench of two Judges like us.
Relevant Para No.
- 22 and 32