ASHIM @ ASIM KUMAR HARANATH BHATTACHARYA @ ASIM HARINATH BHATTACHARYA @ ASEEM KUMAR BHATTACHARYA versus NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY

Citation: [2021] 9 S.C.R. 607 · Decided: 01-12-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: AJAY RASTOGI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
607
   [2021] 9 S.C.R. 607
607
ASHIM @ ASIM KUMAR HARANATH
BHATTACHARYA @ ASIM HARINATH
BHATTACHARYA @ ASEEM KUMAR BHATTACHARYA
v.
NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY
(Criminal Appeal No. 1525 of 2021)
DECEMBER 01, 2021
[AJAY RASTOGI AND ABHAY S. OKA, JJ.]
Bail: Post-arrest bail – Trial for offence under National
Investigation Agency Act, 2008 – Charge sheet filed against the
accused in 2012 while charges framed after seven years in 2019 –
Statement of de facto complainant still not completed – Large number
of prosecution witnesses yet to be examined – Appellant-accused in
custody since 2012 and completed nine and a half years of
incarceration as undertrial prisoner – Appellant seeking bail – Held:
Deprivation of personal liberty without ensuring speedy trial is not
consistent with Art.21 of the Constitution of India – While
deprivation of personal liberty for some period may not be avoidable,
period of deprivation pending trial/appeal cannot be unduly long
– At the same time, timely delivery of justice is part of human rights
and denial of speedy justice is a threat to public confidence in the
administration of justice – Appellant-accused made out a case for
grant of post-arrest bail pending trial – Constitution of India –
Art.21 – National Investigation Agency Act, 2008.
Judicial notice: Under the scheme of the National Investigation
Agency Act, 2008, the power is vested with the Central Government
in consultation with the Chief Justice of the High Court, for the
trial of scheduled offences, to designate one or more Courts of
Session as Special Courts – s.19 of the Act 2008 envisages that the
trial under the Act of any offence by a Special Court shall be held
on day-to-day basis on all working days and shall be concluded in
preference to the trial of such other case and accordingly the trial
of such other case shall, if necessary, remain in abeyance – It seems
that only one such Special Court has been designated by the State
of West Bengal to try such cases under the Act 2008 – In the instant
case, the order sheets indicated that hearing was taking place only
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
608
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 9 S.C.R.
one day in a month and if this procedure is followed in conducting
the trial under Act 2008, it would frustrate the very purpose with
which the Special Courts are designated – State of West Bengal to
take up the issue and designate more dedicated courts of Sessions
as Special Courts for the trial of offences specified in the schedule
appended to the Act 2008 – At the same time, the Central Government
may also, in consultation with the Chief Justice of the High Court,
Calcutta may exercise its power and take up the issue at the earliest
so that such trials which are pending under the Act 2008 may go
ahead speedily and the mandate, as intended by the legislature in
its wisdom, reflected from s.19 of the Act, is being complied with in
its letter and spirit – National Investigation Agency Act, 2008.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The requirement of law as being envisaged
under Section 19 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008
mandates that the trial under the Act of any offence by a Special
Court shall be held on day-to-day basis on all working days and
have precedence over the trial of any other case and Special
Courts are to be designated for such an offence by the Central
Government in consultation with the Chief Justice of the High
Court as contemplated under Section 11 of the Act 2008 but the
ground realities are totally different as in the instant case, after
the charge-sheets came to be filed way back in 2012, the charges
have been framed after 7 years of filing of the charge-sheet on
20th June, 2019. [Para 10][612-A-C]
1.2 The statement of PW-1/de-facto complainant has still
not been completed and there are 298 prosecution witnesses in
the calendar of witness although the respondent has stated in its
counter affidavit that it may examine only 100 to 105 witnesses
but indeed may take its own time to conclude the trial. This fact
certainly cannot be ignored that the appellant is in custody since
6th July, 2012 and has completed nine and half years of
incarceration as an undertrial prisoner. [Para 11][612-D-E]
1.3 Deprivation of personal liberty without ensuring speedy
trial is not consistent with Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
While deprivation of personal liberty for some period may not be
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
609
avoidable, period of deprivation pending trial/appeal 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.