A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

This case examines the denial of bail to Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh, prosecuted under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) and Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860. The Supreme Court emphasized the fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The accused, in custody for over four years as an undertrial, faced delays due to the examination of 80 witnesses and the inability to frame charges. The Court set aside the High Court’s decision, granting bail based on the principle of presumption of innocence, violation of Article 21, and the need for a humanist approach towards delinquents.

Keywords: Bail denial, UAPA, Speedy trial, Article 21, Undertrial rights.

B) CASE DETAILS

i) Judgment Cause Title: Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra and Another
ii) Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 2787 of 2024
iii) Judgment Date: July 3, 2024
iv) Court: Supreme Court of India
v) Quorum: J.B. Pardiwala and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ.
vi) Author: Not specified in extracted text
vii) Citation: [2024] 7 S.C.R. 992
viii) Legal Provisions Involved:

• Article 21 of the Indian Constitution
• Sections 489B, 489C, 120B, 34 of IPC
• Section 19 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008
• Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA)

ix) Judgments overruled by the Case: None indicated in the text
x) Case Related to Law Subjects: Criminal Law, Constitutional Law, Human Rights Law

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGMENT

The case stems from the appellant’s arrest under accusations of possessing counterfeit currency and his prolonged custody as an undertrial. This raised significant constitutional questions about pre-trial detention, fundamental rights under Article 21, and the procedural rigor required under UAPA. The appellant’s plea for bail was repeatedly denied by lower courts, prompting an appeal to the Supreme Court.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

• Arrest and Allegations: On February 9, 2020, the Mumbai Police arrested the appellant near Terminal II of Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj International Airport. A search revealed 1,193 counterfeit ₹2,000 currency notes.

• Prosecution’s Case: The counterfeit notes were allegedly smuggled from Pakistan. The appellant purportedly received these notes during a Dubai visit on February 6, 2020, before returning to India.

• Investigative Developments: The case was handed to the NIA, registering Case No. RC/03/20/NIA/Mumbai. Co-accused were granted bail, and 80 witnesses were identified for examination.

• Procedural Delays: Despite four years of custody, charges had not been framed, prompting the appellant to claim violation of his right to a speedy trial.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

1. Whether prolonged detention as an undertrial violated the appellant’s right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.
2. Whether the High Court was justified in denying bail despite the lack of progress in the trial.
3. Applicability of the presumption of innocence under criminal jurisprudence to UAPA cases.

F) PETITIONER/APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

1. Prolonged Detention: The appellant argued that his four-year detention without trial violated Article 21. The inability to frame charges or conclude trial showed negligence by the prosecution.

2. Right to Bail: Citing Gudikanti Narasimhulu v. Public Prosecutor (1978) 1 SCC 240, it was argued that bail should not be denied as punishment.

3. Equality in Bail Grant: Co-accused in the same case were granted bail, yet the appellant remained incarcerated, amounting to discriminatory treatment.

4. Presumption of Innocence: The appellant was presumed innocent until proven guilty, per Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 565.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

1. Seriousness of Crime: The respondents emphasized the severe nature of the charges, involving counterfeit currency smuggling, linked to national security.

2. Public Interest: Stringent bail conditions under UAPA should prevail, as highlighted in Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb (2021) 3 SCC 713, restricting judicial discretion.

3. Risk of Absconding: The appellant’s international connections suggested a flight risk if bail was granted.

H) JUDGMENT

a. Ratio Decidendi

1. Speedy Trial as a Fundamental Right: The Court reiterated that Article 21 guarantees a right to a fair and expeditious trial, irrespective of the crime’s seriousness.
2. Humanist Jurisprudence: Prolonged detention without trial infringed upon the accused’s dignity and personal liberty, violating constitutional guarantees.

b. Obiter Dicta

1. Criminals, even under stringent laws, deserve a fair trial. Excessive delay reflects poorly on procedural fairness.

c. Guidelines (if any)

1. The Court instructed trial courts to expedite cases under special statutes like UAPA, emphasizing compliance with Section 19 of the NIA Act.
2. Specific bail conditions included restricted movement within Mumbai and fortnightly reporting to the NIA.

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The judgment balances public security concerns and the rights of undertrial prisoners. By reaffirming Article 21, it underscores the judiciary’s role in protecting liberty while ensuring due process.

J) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred

1. Gudikanti Narasimhulu v. Public Prosecutor (1978) 1 SCC 240
2. Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 565
3. Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar (1980) 1 SCC 81
4. Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb (2021) 3 SCC 713
5. Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2022) 10 SCC 51

b. Important Statutes Referred

1. Article 21, Constitution of India
2. Sections 489B, 489C, 120B, 34 of IPC
3. Section 19, National Investigation Agency Act, 2008
4. Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967