New Delhi: Notwithstanding the seriousness of an offence, an accused is entitled to bail if a prosecuting agency does not ensure a speedy trial, the Supreme Court has observed.
A division of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan made the remarks on Thursday, July 5, while granting bail to an undertrial who was arrested in February 2020 in Mumbai over allegations of smuggling counterfeit Indian currency from Pakistan. The judges set aside the Bombay high court’s order denying bail to the accused.
The top court took serious objection to the National Investigation Agency (prosecuting agency in this case) not being able to frame charges in the case even four years after the arrest was made. It also expressed shock after learning that the NIA is yet to examine 80 witnesses in the case.
The court made it clear that the right to a speedy trial, as enshrined in Article 21 of the constitution, applies to all accused irrespective of the nature of the crime.
“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 court underlined, according to Livelaw.
The apex court cited a number of cases – Gudikanti Narasimhulu & Ors. v. Public Prosecutor, High Court reported in (1978) 1 SCC 240, Gurbaksh Singh Sibba v. State of Punjab reported in (1980) 2 SCC 565 – to drive home the point that the bail is to be granted if the presence of the accused at the trial can be secured.
“The petitioner is still an accused; not a convict. The over-arching postulate of criminal jurisprudence that an accused is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty cannot be brushed aside lightly, howsoever stringent the penal law may be. We are convinced that the manner in which the prosecuting agency as well as the court have proceeded, the right of the accused to have a speedy trial could be said to have been infringed thereby violating Article 21 of the Constitution,” the court observed.
