The Division Bench of the Supreme Court consisting of Justices Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S. Oka in a case for grant of post arrest bail pending trial held that while deprivation of personal liberty for some period may not be avoidable, period of deprivation pending trial/appeal cannot be unduly long.
Facts
An FIR was initially lodged under the provisions of Arms Act, 1959 and the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 against five accused persons by a defacto complainant who is an Inspector, Special Task Force in 2012. Later, the National Investigation Agency took over the investigation. The said case was reregistered at PS NIA Headquarters, New Delhi for offences under provisions of the Arms Act 1959, the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (hereinafter being referred to as “UAP Act”) on 12th April 2012. After investigation, the charge sheet was initially filed on 23rd August 2012 and thereafter the first supplementary charge sheet was filed on 27th December 2012. The charges later came to be framed on 20th June 2019 for offences under relevant provisions of IPC, Arms Act, 1959 and the UAP Act. The cross-examination of the defacto complainant, had still not been completed.
The requirement of law as envisaged under Section 19 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (hereinafter being referred to as “Act 2008”) 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 Act 2008 but the ground realities are totally different as in the instant case, after the chargesheets came to be filed way back in 2012, the charges have been framed after 7 years of filing of the chargesheet on 20th June, 2019.
Procedural History
The appellant was arrested on 6th July 2012 based on a production warrant sent to Nagpur Central Jail, Maharashtra. The instant appeal was filed on behalf of the appellant out of the total number of 14 accused persons seeking post arrest bail which came to be rejected by the Trial Court by Order dated 25th February 2020 and by the High Court by Order dated 15th March 2021.
Contentions made
Learned counsel for the respondent vehemently opposed the appeal filed by the accused appellant seeking post arrest bail and submitted that the delay is in no manner attributable to the prosecution and this Court may direct the Trial Court to take up the case on day-to-day basis and conclude the trial at the earliest.
Observations of the Court
The Court observed that they must balance the nature of crime in reference to which the appellant is facing a trial. They observed that:
“This fact certainly cannot be ignored that the appellant is in custody since 6th July 2012 and has completed nine and half years of incarceration as an undertrial prisoner. This Court has consistently observed in its numerous judgments that the liberty guaranteed in Part III of the Constitution would cover within its protective ambit not only due procedure and fairness but also access to justice and a speedy trial is imperative and the undertrials cannot indefinitely be detained pending trial. Once it is obvious that a timely trial would not be possible and the accused has suffered incarceration for a significant period, the Courts would ordinarily be obligated to enlarge him on bail.”
Emphasis was laid on Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb regarding long incarceration vis-à-vis the effect of Section 43D (5) of the UAP Act. They further observed that:
“Deprivation of personal liberty without ensuring speedy trial is not consistent with Article 21 of the Constitution of India. While deprivation of personal liberty for some period may not be avoidable, period of deprivation pending trial/appeal cannot be unduly long. At the same time, timely delivery of justice is part of human rights and denial of speedy justice is a threat to public confidence in the administration of justice.”
Judgment
The Court, stressing the importance of the role of special courts in ensuring speedy justice, considered it appropriate to direct that the State of West Bengal shall take up the issue and designate more dedicated courts of Sessions as Special Courts for the trial of offences specified in the schedule appended to the Act 2008. It also directed that the Central Government may also, in consultation with the Chief Justice of the High Court, Calcutta exercise its power and take up the issue at the earliest so that such trials which are pending under the Act 2008 may go ahead speedily.
It directed that accused appellant be produced before the trial Court within three days and shall be released on post-arrest bail by the Trial Court. The bench also made it clear that the Trial Court will be at liberty to consider and impose appropriate conditions subject to which the appellant accused will be released on bail to ensure that the appellant accused is available for trial in terms of the present order. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the judgment and order of the High Court was set aside.
Case Name: Ashim @ Asim Kumar Haranath Bhattacharya @ Asim Harinath Bhattacharya @ Aseem Kumar Bhattacharya vs National Investigation Agency
Citation: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1525 OF 2021
Bench: Justice Ajay Rastogi, Justice Abhay S. Oka
Decided on: 1st December 2021
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
