Supreme Court of India judgment granting bail to a foreign national accused under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, after nine years of incarceration, highlighting the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.

The Supreme Court of India, in the case of Sheikh Javed Iqbal @ Ashfaq Ansari @ Javed Ansari vs State of Uttar Pradesh, granted bail to the appellant after nine years of imprisonment. The appellant was accused of possessing counterfeit Indian currency notes and charged under Sections 489B and 489C of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 16 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAP Act).

Brief: Sheikh Javed Iqbal was apprehended on February 22, 2015, at the Indo-Nepal border with counterfeit Indian currency notes totaling Rs.26,03,500. He was subsequently charged under Sections 489B and 489C of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 16 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAP Act).

The heart of the case lies in the appellant's prolonged detention, spanning over nine (9) years by July 2024. Despite the gravity of the accusations, the trial has progressed at a glacial pace, with only two witnesses' testimonies recorded in this timeframe. Furthermore, the appellant's status as a foreign national complicates the case and played a significant role in the High Court's decision to deny bail, citing a potential flight risk. Adding another layer is the invocation of the UAP Act, specifically Section 16, which deals with 'terrorist acts' that threaten India's economic security, including the circulation of counterfeit currency. However, the appellant's plea for bail hinges on his right to a speedy trial, as enshrined in Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.

The Supreme Court, citing its own precedents, stated that extended incarceration without a foreseeable end to the trial justifies granting bail, even in cases involving serious offenses. The Court clarified that statutory restrictions, like those in the UAP Act, cannot supersede the constitutional right to a speedy trial.
The Court also drew parallels with its judgment in "Union of India Vs. K.A. Najeeb", where bail was granted due to prolonged detention and a bleak prospect of a timely trial.
The Court clarified that its decision in "NIA Vs Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali", denying bail, should not be misconstrued as a precedent to refuse bail solely based on the gravity of the offense.

By refering to "Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh Vs. State of Maharashtra"** the Apex coust also observed that

"23. This Bench in a recent decision dated 03.07.2024 in Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh Vs. State of Maharashtra, Criminal Appeal No. 2787 of 2024, has held that howsoever serious a crime may be, an accused has the right to speedy trial under the Constitution of India."

The Court observed that the Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA is comparatively less stringent than Section 37 of the NDPS Act. And It is pertinent copy the observation made by The Hon'ble Supreme Court in connetion with the Sec 43D(5) and Sec 37 of The NDPS Act:

|"29. Going back to K.A. Najeeb (supra), this Court thereafter proceeded to hold that Section 43D(5) of the UAP Act does not oust the ability of the constitutional courts to grant bail on grounds of violation of Part III of the Constitution. Long incarceration with the unlikelihood of the trial being completed in the near future is a good ground to grant bail. This Court also distinguished Section 43D(5) of the UAP Act from Section 37 of the NDPS Act." It has been held as follows:
"17. It is thus clear to us that the presence of statutory restrictions like Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA per se does not oust the ability of the constitutional courts to grant bail on grounds of violation of Part III of the Constitution. Indeed, both the restrictions under a statute as well as the powers exercisable under constitutional jurisdiction can be well harmonised. Whereas at commencement of proceedings, the courts are expected to appreciate the legislative policy against grant of bail but the rigours of such provisions will melt down where there is no likelihood of trial being completed within a reasonable time and the period of incarceration already undergone has exceeded a substantial part of the prescribed sentence. Such an approach would safeguard against the possibility of provisions like Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA being used as the sole metric for denial of bail or for wholesale breach of constitutional right to speedy trial." |

Thus, while granting bail, the apex Court however imposed specific conditions on the appellant, including impounding his passport, restricting travel, ensuring regular court appearances, reporting to the police fortnightly, and prohibiting witness tampering or evidence manipulation, and also held that "If there is any violation of the bail conditions as above, it would be open to the prosecution to move to the trial court for cancellation of bail."

Coram: Justice J.B. PARDIWALA and Justice UJJAL BHUYAN
Between:Sheikh Javed Iqbal @ Ashfaq Ansari @ Javed Ansari Vs State of Uttar Pradesh
DOJ: JULY 18, 2024.