UNION OF INDIA versus K. A. NAJEEB

Citation: [2021] 1 S.C.R. 443 · Decided: 01-02-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N.V. RAMANA · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 13 judgment(s) · cites 6 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
443
   [2021] 1 S.C.R. 443
443
UNION OF INDIA
v.
K. A. NAJEEB
(Criminal Appeal No. 98 of 2021)
FEBRUARY 01, 2021
[N.V. RAMANA, SURYA KANT, ANIRUDDHA BOSE, JJ.]
Bail:
Grant of bail – By High Court – To the accused charged for
offences u/ss. 143, 147, 148, 120-B, 341, 427, 323, 324, 326,
506(H), 201, 202, 153A, 212, 307 and 149 IPC; u/s. 3 of Explosive
Substances Act, 1908 and ss. 16, 18, 18-B, 19 and 20 of Unlawful
Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 – On the ground that the undertrial-
accused could not be kept in custody for too long when the trial
was not likely to commence in near future – By setting aside the
order of Special Court who had declined to grant bail to the accused
primarily in view of the bar against grant of bail u/s. 43-D(5) of
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act – Appeal to Supreme Court –
Held: The liberty guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution would
cover within its protective ambit not only due procedure and fairness
but also access to justice and speedy trial – Undertrials cannot
indefinitely be detained, pending trial – Once it is obvious that a
timely trial would not be possible and the accused has suffered
incarceration for a significant period of time, courts would ordinarily
be obliged to enlarge them on bail– The statutory restrictions per se
do not oust the ability of Constitutional Courts to grant bail on
grounds of violation of Part III of the Constitution – Such statutory
restrictions and the powers exercisable under constitutional
jurisdiction can be harmonised – The restriction u/s. 43-D(5) under
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act is less stringent than the
restriction provided under s. 37 of NDPS Act – The accused in the
present case has been in jail for more than five years; none of the
convicted thirteen co-accused have been sentenced for more than
8 years RI and that 276 witnesses are left to be examined – In the
facts of the case, High Court was left with no other option, but to
grant bail – However, in addition to the conditions to be imposed
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
444
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 1 S.C.R.
by the trial Court while releasing the accused on bail, some more
conditions are imposed – Appeals are dismissed.
Shaheen Welfare Association v. Union of India (1996)
2 SCC 616 : [1996] 2 SCR 1123; Hussain v. Union of
India (2017) 5 SCC 702 : [2017] 2 SCR 626; Paramjit
Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi) (1999) 9 SCC 252; Babba
alias Shankar Raghuman Rohida v. State of
Maharashtra (2005) 11 SCC 569; Umarmia alias
Mamumia v. State of Gujarat (2017) 2 SCC 731; Angela
Harish Sontakke v. State of Maharashtra 2021 (2)
SCALE 301; Sagar Tatyaram Gorkhe v. State of
Maharashtra 2021 (2) SCALE 302; Supreme Court
Legal Aid Committee Representing Undertrial Prisoners
v. Union of India (1994) 6 SCC 731 : [1994] 4 Suppl.
SCR 386 – relied on.
National Investigation Agency v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah
Watali (2019) 5 SCC 1 : [2019] 5 SCR 1060-
distinguished
Puran v. Rambilas (2001) 6 SCC 338 : [2001] 3 SCR
432; Gurcharan Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.) (1978) 1
SCC 118 : [1978] 2 SCR 358; State of Bihar v. Rajballav
Prasad (2017) 2 SCC 178 : [2016] 9 SCR 652 –
referred to.
Case Law Reference
[2019] 5 SCR 1060
distinguished
Para 7
[1996] 2 SCR 1123
relied on
Para 8
[2017] 2 SCR 626
relied on
Para 8
[2001] 3 SCR 432
referred to
Para 9
[1978] 2 SCR 358
referred to
Para 9
[2016] 9 SCR 652
referred to
Para 10
(1999) 9 SCC 252
relied on
Para 13
(2005) 11 SCC 569
relied on
Para 13
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
445
(2017) 2 SCC 731
relied on
Para 13
2021 (2) SCALE 301
relied on
Para 14
2021 (2) SCALE 302
relied on
Para 14
[1994] 4 Suppl. SCR 386
relied on
Para 16
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No. 98 of 2021.
From the Judgment and Order dated 23.07.2019 of the High Court
of Kerala at Ernakulam in Crl. M. Appl. 1/2019 in Criminal Appeal No.
659 of 2019.
 Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, ASG, R. Basant, Sr. Adv., Kanu Agrawal, 
Mohd. Akhil, B.V. Balaram Das,   Ramesh Babu M. R.,  Advs. for the
appearing parties.
The Order of the Court was passed by
SURYA KANT, J.
1. Leave Granted.
2. The present appeal has been preferred by the Union of India
through the National Investigation Agency (in short, “NIA”) against an
order dated 23.07.2019 of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam,
whereby bail was granted to the respondent for an offence under
Sections 143, 147, 148, 120-B, 341, 427, 323, 324, 326, 506(H), 201, 202,
153A, 212, 307, 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”), Section 3
of the Explosive Substances A
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.