Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra [July 03, 2024]
Citation: [2024] 7 S.C.R. 992; 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1693
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Ujjal Bhuyan
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 2787 of 2024
Facts:
On February 9, 2020, Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh was arrested near Terminal II of Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj International Airport, Mumbai, carrying 1,193 counterfeit ₹2,000 notes. The prosecution alleged these notes were smuggled from Pakistan and received during a Dubai visit on February 6, 2020.
The case was transferred to the National Investigation Agency (NIA), with charges under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA), Sections 489B, 489C, 120B, 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and Section 19 of the NIA Act.
Despite four years in custody, charges had not been framed, and 80 witnesses were yet to be examined. Co-accused had already been granted bail.
Arguments:
Appellant:
Prolonged detention without trial violated Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty) of the Indian Constitution.
The prosecution’s inability to frame charges or conclude the trial amounted to negligence.
Bail should not be denied as a form of punishment, referencing Gudikanti Narasimhulu v. Public Prosecutor (1978) and Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab (1980).
Co-accused were granted bail, and continued incarceration was discriminatory.
Respondents:
Opposed bail, citing the seriousness of the offence and national security concerns under UAPA.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court set aside the Bombay High Court’s order denying bail, granting bail to the appellant.
The Court emphasized that the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 applies irrespective of the gravity of the offence, including cases under special statutes like UAPA.
The Court criticized the prosecution for procedural delays and noted that prolonged detention without trial violates personal liberty and dignity.
The Court highlighted a humanist approach, stating that even those accused under stringent laws deserve fair treatment and timely justice.
Bail was granted with conditions, including restricted movement within Mumbai and fortnightly reporting to the NIA.
Key Principles and Observations:
Speedy Trial: The right to a speedy trial is fundamental and cannot be overridden by the seriousness of the alleged crime.
Presumption of Innocence: The accused remains innocent until proven guilty, and bail should not be used as punishment.
Humanist Jurisprudence: Courts must adopt a humanist approach, recognizing the potential for reform and the importance of upholding constitutional rights even in UAPA cases.
Guidance for Future Cases: Trial courts must expedite proceedings in cases under special statutes, ensuring compliance with Section 19 of the NIA Act and Article 21.
Significance:
This judgment reinforces that the seriousness of an offence cannot justify indefinite pre-trial incarceration, especially when the prosecution fails to ensure a timely trial. The Supreme Court’s decision sets a precedent for upholding the right to liberty and fair process, even in cases involving national security statutes like the UAPA.
RELATED Blog
0 comments