The Supreme Court of India ordered the release of an accused who had been incarcerated for 4 years without the framing of charges by the trial court on the basis of the right to speedy trial inherent in the Right to life enshrined in Art 21 of the Constitution.

The accused was found in possession of counterfeit currency. NIA was the investigating agency.

The Hon’ble Court held that inspite of the seriousness of the offence, the accused has the right to speedy trial.The trial courts and the High Courts have forgotten that bail is not to be withheld as punishment.The requirements of bail are merely to secure attendance of a prisoner for trial.The requisite test is whether it is probable that the prisoner will appear at trial.

The right to speedy trial is implicit in the broad sweep of Art.21.

The statutory restriction U/s 43-D(5) of UAPA does not oust the power of constitutional courts to grant bail.There is need for harmonisation of the restriction of a statute and the powers under Constitutional Jurisdiction.43-D(5) of UAPA cannot be sole criteria for denying bail.The procedure needs to be just, fair and reasonable.

Javed Nabi

Vs

State of Maharashtra

By aor.sanjivnarang@gmail.com

Sanjiv Narang Adv. is an Advocate on Record (AOR) in the Supreme Court of India. His qualifications include an LLB from University of Delhi and a Masters degree in Personnel Management from Panjab University,Chandigarh.In his more than 3 decades of experience, he has practiced law at the District, High Court and Supreme Court levels.He also has more than a decade of experience in the field of Management. He is the author of two books namely Laws for Women in India and Innovation, Why What and How.