If trial prolongs bail to be granted
The Supreme Court (SC), in Sheikh Javed Iqbal @ Ashfaq Ansari @ Javed Ansari v. State of Uttar Pradesh, says that a constitutional court cannot be restrained from granting bail to an accused on account of restrictive statutory provisions in a penal statute if it finds that the right of the accused-undertrial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India has been infringed.
In serious cases trials should be expeditious
If the alleged offence is a serious one, it is necessary for the prosecution to ensure that the trial is concluded expeditiously. When a trial gets prolonged, it is not open to the prosecution to oppose bail of the accused-undertrial on the ground that the charges are very serious.
Bail cannot be denied because charges are serious
Bail cannot be denied only on the ground that the charges are very serious though there is no end in sight for the trial to conclude”.
The SC added that the Section 43D of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967 provides that a person accused of offences under Chapters IV and VI of the UAPA cannot be released on bail without giving the public prosecutor an opportunity to be heard and the accused cannot be released if the court, after reviewing the case diary, finds the accusation prima facie true.
Prolonged detention without trial infringes liberty
The SC referred to its previous rulings, including the cases of Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v State of Maharashtra and Union of India v KA Najeeb, underscoring the necessity of balancing the seriousness of the charges with the duration of pre-trial incarceration. The Supreme Court highlighted that prolonged detention without conclusion of the trial violates the fundamental right to a speedy trial.
The SC distinguished the decision in Gurwinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2024) which held that mere delay in trial cannot be a ground for bail. The Court explained that in Gurwinder, there was substantial progress in the trial and it was in that context, that the observations in that judgment were made.
The SC noted that it is bound by a larger bench judgment in KA Najeeb which held that prolonged incarceration is a ground for bail under UAPA.
