Sheikh Javed Iqbal @ Ashfaq Ansari @ Javed Ansari vs. State of Uttar Pradesh [July 18, 2024]
Citation: 2024 INSC 534; Supreme Court of India
Background and Facts
Sheikh Javed Iqbal, also known as Ashfaq Ansari or Javed Ansari, was arrested and charged under Sections 489B and 489C of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for offences related to counterfeit currency, and under Section 16 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) for alleged terrorist activity. He had been in custody for over nine years awaiting trial. Despite charges being framed, only two prosecution witnesses had been examined during this lengthy detention, with the trial showing little progress.
Javed Iqbal’s bail applications were repeatedly denied by the lower courts, primarily on the basis of the stringent bail provisions under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA, which restricts bail if the court believes the accusation is prima facie true. The Allahabad High Court rejected his bail in April 2023. He appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that his prolonged incarceration without trial violated his fundamental right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Key Legal Issues
Whether prolonged pre-trial detention under stringent statutes like the UAPA can justify bail, even when the statutory “twin test” for bail is otherwise not satisfied.
The role of Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty) and the constitutional duty of courts to prevent indefinite detention without trial.
Supreme Court’s Analysis and Findings
The Supreme Court recognized that while the UAPA imposes strict conditions for bail, constitutional courts are not absolutely barred from granting bail in cases of inordinate delay and prolonged incarceration.
The Court distinguished the present case from National Investigation Agency v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali (2019), clarifying that Watali does not preclude the grant of bail where the accused has suffered long incarceration and the trial has not progressed.
The Court emphasized that the right to speedy trial is an essential part of Article 21 and that continued detention for over nine years, with only two witnesses examined, amounted to a violation of this right.
The Court held that the constitutional guarantee of liberty must override statutory restrictions in cases of egregious delay, and that the judiciary has a duty to intervene to prevent miscarriage of justice, even under special statutes like the UAPA.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court quashed the High Court’s order and granted bail to Sheikh Javed Iqbal, imposing appropriate conditions.
Conclusion and Significance
The judgment is a significant reaffirmation of the primacy of constitutional rights, especially Article 21, over procedural and statutory restrictions in cases of prolonged pre-trial detention.
The Supreme Court clarified that while the UAPA’s bail restrictions are stringent, they cannot be used to justify indefinite incarceration when the trial is unreasonably delayed.
The decision underscores the constitutional courts’ power and duty to grant bail in exceptional circumstances, ensuring that justice and liberty are not sacrificed to procedural rigidity.
In summary: The Supreme Court granted bail to Sheikh Javed Iqbal, holding that prolonged incarceration without meaningful trial progress under the UAPA violates Article 21, and that constitutional courts must intervene to uphold the right to liberty in such cases.
RELATED Blog
0 comments