Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh [Appellant] Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another [Respondents]
Criminal Appeal No 2787 of 2024
(2JB, J B Pardiwala and Ujjal Bhuyan JJ.)
Facts: The present 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’).
Issue: Whether the accused has right to speedy trial in every case?
Arguments on behalf of counsel for appellant:
It is the case of the prosecution that the consignment of the counterfeit notes was smuggled from Pakistan to Mumbai. Having regard to the nature of the crime as alleged, the investigation was ultimately taken over by the NIA. As a result, Case No RC/03/20/NIA/Mumbai came to be registered for the offences enumerated above. The investigation further revealed that on 6th February 2020, the appellant visited Dubai, and while he was in Dubai, he is said to have received the counterfeit notes from one of the absconding accused persons. On 9th February 2020, he is said to have returned to India.
Held: The court disposed off the present appeal and held that, “Criminals are not born out but made. The human potential in everyone is good and so, never write off any criminal as beyond redemption. This humanist fundamental is often missed when dealing with delinquents, juvenile and adult. Indeed, every saint has a past and every sinner a future. When a crime is committed, a variety of factors is responsible for making the offender commit the crime. Those factors may be social and economic, may be, the result of value erosion or parental neglect; may be, because of the stress of circumstances, or the manifestation of temptations in a milieu of affluence contrasted with indigence or other privations.”
Further, the court observed that, “Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having gone through the materials on record, we are inclined to exercise our discretion in favour of the appellant herein keeping in mind the following aspects:
- The appellant is in jail as an under-trial prisoner past four years;
- Till this date, the trial court has not been able to even proceed to frame charge; and
- As pointed out by the counsel appearing for the State as well as NIA, the prosecution intends to examine not less than eighty witnesses.
Having regard to the aforesaid, we wonder by what period of time, the trial will ultimately conclude. Howsoever serious a crime may be, an accused has a right to speedy trial as enshrined under the Constitution of India. 9 Over a period of time, the trial courts and the High Courts have forgotten a very well settled principle of law that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment.”
