LexJAVED GULAM NABI SHAIKH versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 992 : 2024 INSC 645 Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra and Another (Criminal Appeal No. 2787 of 2024) 03 July 2024 [J.B. Pardiwala and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ.] Issue for Consideration High Court whether justified in denying bail to the appellant, an under-trial prisoner prosecuted under Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and Penal Code, 1860. Headnotes† Bail – Denial – When not justified – Constitution of India – Article 21 – Right to speedy trial – Applicability of, irrespective of the seriousness of crime – Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 – Penal Code, 1860 – ss.489B, 489C, 120B, 34 – National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 – s.19 – Fake counterfeit Indian currency notes seized from the appellant-accused – In custody as an under-trial prisoner for four years – Bail denied: Held: Bail is not to be withheld as a punishment – 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 u/Article 21, then it should not oppose the plea for bail on the ground that the crime committed is serious – Howsoever serious a crime may be, an accused has a right to speedy trial – Article 21 applies irrespective of the nature of the crime – Petitioner is still an accused and not a convict – He has been in jail as an under-trial prisoner for four years – No charges have been framed till date – There are around eighty witnesses to be examined, no clarity as to when the trial will ultimately conclude – 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 – Right of the accused to have a speedy trial was infringed thereby violating Article 21 – Impugned order passed by the High Court set aside – Appellant granted bail. [Paras 7, 8, 9, 19-21, 22, 23] Criminal Law – Humanist approach towards delinquents – Need for – Discussed. [Para 18] [2024] 7 S.C.R. 993 Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra and Another Case Law Cited Gudikanti Narasimhulu & Ors. v. Public Prosecutor [1978] 2 SCR 371 : (1978) 1 SCC 240; Gurbaksh Singh Sibba v. State of Punjab [1980] 3 SCR 383 : (1980) 2 SCC 565; Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secy., State of Bihar [1979] 3 SCR 169 : (1980) 1 SCC 81; Kadra Pahadiya & Ors. v. State of Bihar (1981) 3 SCC 671; Abdul Rehman Antulay v. R.S. Nayak [1991] Supp. 3 SCR 325 : (1992) 1 SCC 225; Mohd Muslim @ Hussain v. State (NCT of Delhi) [2023] 3 SCR 697 : 2023 INSC 311; Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb [2021] 1 SCR 443 : (2021) 3 SCC 713; Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation [2022] 10 SCR 351 : (2022) 10 SCC 51 – relied on. List of Acts Constitution of India; Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967; National Investigation Agency Act, 2008; Penal Code, 1860; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. List of Keywords Bail; Bail denied; Under-trial prisoner; Accused not convict; Article 21 of the Constitution of India; Speedy trial; Fundamental right of accused to speedy trial; Seriousness of crime; Nature of crime serious; Accused presumed to be innocent until proven guilty; Criminal jurisprudence; Criminal law. Case Arising From CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 2787 of 2024 From the Judgment and Order dated 05.02.2024 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in CRLA No. 1060 of 2023 Appearances for Parties Sherali S. Khan, Sushant Kumar Yadav, Ankur Yadav, Advs. for the Appellant. Abhikalp Pratap Singh, Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, Bharat Bagla, Ms. Aagam Kaur, Aditya Krishna, Ms. Preet S. Phanse, Ms. Yamini Singh, Adarsh Dubey, Kartikey, Shubhendu Anand, Siddharth Sinha, Madhav Sinhal, Amit Sharma B, Arvind Kumar Sharma, Advs. for the Respondents. 994 [2024] 7 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Order 1. Leave granted. 2. This appeal arises from the order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay dated 5th February 2024 in Criminal Appeal No 1060 of 2023 by which the High Court declined to release the appellant on bail in connection with his prosecution under the provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967 (for short ‘UAPA’). 3. When this matter was taken up for hearing, both, the counsel appearing for the National Investigation Agency (NIA) as well as t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.