The Supreme Court (SC) says that the High Courts and Trial Courts have forgotten that bail cannot be denied as a punishment, in its judgement in Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v The State Of Maharashtra.
The SC reiterated the need for the Trial Courts and High Courts not to dilute the essence of speedy trial and personal liberty when deciding issues of bail. It has observed that refusal to grant bail cannot be a punishment mechanism irrespective of the seriousness of the alleged offence.
It was pointed out that in Gudikanti Narasimhulu & Ors. v Public Prosecutor [(1978) 1 SCC 240.] the Sc observed that the object of apprehending a person as undertrial is ensuring speedy trial and effective disposal of cases.
In the judgment in Mohd. Muslim v State (NCT of Delhi) it was held that bail can be granted if there is undue delay in trial regardless of the stringent provisions of special statutes like NDPS Act.
The judgment in Union of India v K.A. Najeeb (2021), which held that UAPA does not bar constitutional courts from granting bail on the ground of long delay in the trial was also relied upon.
The SC pointed out 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”.
Long back, in Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secy., State of Bihar, the SC had declared that the right to speedy trial of offenders facing criminal charges is “implicit in the broad sweep and content of Article 21.
In short, in this case the SC allowed the appeal and observed that there was infringement of Article 21 in putting the accused in incarceration for long without trial and allowing bail.
