The Hon’ble Supreme Court opined that howsoever serious a crime may be, an accused has a right to speedy trial as enshrined under the Constitution of India. The law under Section 19 of National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 was expounded.
It was held that this provision mandates that the trial under the Act of any offence by a Special Court shall be held on day-to-day basis on all working days and have precedence over the trial of any other case and Special Courts are to be designated for such an offence by the Central Government in consultation with the Chief Justice of the High Court as contemplated under Section 11 of the 2008.
Brief Facts:
The present appeal has been filed against the order of the High Court vide which the Appellant’s bail was declined.
The Appellant was prosecuted under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967 (‘UAPA’).
Brief Background:
The Appellant was arrested as he was found to be in possession of counterfeit notes.
As per the prosecution, the consignment of the counterfeit notes was smuggled from Pakistan to Mumbai.
Observations of the Court:
The Bench decided to exercise its discretion in favor of Appellant as the Appellant was in jail as undertrial prisoner for last 4 years, no charges have been framed yet and minimum 80 witnesses have to be examined by the Prosecution.
It was opined that howsoever serious a crime may be, an accused has a right to speedy trial as enshrined under the Constitution of India. The law under Section 19 of National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 was expounded.
It was held that this provision mandates that the trial under the Act of any offence by a Special Court shall be held on day-to-day basis on all working days and have precedence over the trial of any other case and Special Courts are to be designated for such an offence by the Central Government in consultation with the Chief Justice of the High Court as contemplated under Section 11 of the 2008.
The Court held that
“if the State or any prosecuting agency including the court concerned has no wherewithal to provide or protect the fundamental right of an accused to have a speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution then the State or any other prosecuting agency should not oppose the plea for bail on the ground that the crime committed is serious. Article 21 of the Constitution applies irrespective of the nature of the crime.”
The decision of the Court:
Based on aforementioned reasoning, the Court accordingly allowed the Appeal and granted bail to the Appellant.
Case Title: Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No 2787 of 2024
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice J B Pardiwala, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
Advocates for Appellant: Adv. Mr. Sherali S. Khan, Mr. Sushant Kumar Yadav, Mr. Ankur Yadav
Advocates for Respondent: Advs. Mr. Abhikalp Pratap Singh, Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, Mr. Bharat Bagla, Ms. Aagam Kaur, Mr. Aditya Krishna, Ms. Preet S. Phanse, Ms. Yamini Singh, Mr. Adarsh Dubey, Mr. Kartikey, Mr. Shubhendu Anand, Mr. Siddharth Sinha, Mr. Madhav Sinhal, Mr. Amit Sharma B, Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma
Read More @LatestLaws.com:
Picture Source :
