The Supreme Court recently held that courts are obligated to grant bail to undertrial prisoners who undergo incarceration for a long time in cases where timely trial is not possible (Ashim v. National Investigation Agency)..Once it is obvious that a timely trial would not be possible and the accused has suffered incarceration for a significant period of time, the Courts would ordinarily be obligated to enlarge him on bail, the Court said."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," the judgment said.It, therefore, granted bail to a person accused of offences under Indian Penal Code (IPC), Arms Act and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).The Court was hearing an appeal against a judgment of the Calcutta High Court which had denied bail to a person accused of offences under Sections 120B (conspiracy), 121 (waging war against Government of India), 121A (conspiracy to wage war against Government of India) and 122 (collecting arms, etc., with intention of waging war against the Government of India) of the IPC, Section 25(1A) of the Arms Act, 1959 and Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and Sections 18(conspiring for a terrorist activity),20(being member of a terrorist group),40(1)(b)(c) of the UAPA..The Bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S Oka observed that while the charges against the appellant were serious, factors like the period of incarceration and the likely time within which the trial might be conducted must be considered for grant of bail. The Bench also noted that the appellant is 74 years old and has already spent nine and a half years in jail as an undertrial..It was also observed that the de facto complainant's statement has still not been recorded. Further, there are 298 prosecution witnesses out of which the respondents have sought to examine 100-150 witnesses, which will further stretch the trial..The Court also noted that the State of West Bengal does not have enough special courts under the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 to conduct trials in a timely manner."It has been informed to this Court that only one such Special Court has been designated by the State of West Bengal to try such cases under the Act 2008. Before us, the order sheets have been placed for perusal of the instant case and it indicates that hearing is taking place only one day in a month and if this procedure is being followed in conducting the trial under Act 2008, it frustrates the very purpose with which the special Courts are designated," the bench stated.It thus directed the State government to designate more dedicated Sessions Courts as Special NIA Courts. The Central government was also directed to ensure that such trials progress speedily, after consulting with the Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court..The Court ultimately overturned the order of the Calcutta High Court and granted bail to the appellant. .[Read order]
The Supreme Court recently held that courts are obligated to grant bail to undertrial prisoners who undergo incarceration for a long time in cases where timely trial is not possible (Ashim v. National Investigation Agency)..Once it is obvious that a timely trial would not be possible and the accused has suffered incarceration for a significant period of time, the Courts would ordinarily be obligated to enlarge him on bail, the Court said."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," the judgment said.It, therefore, granted bail to a person accused of offences under Indian Penal Code (IPC), Arms Act and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).The Court was hearing an appeal against a judgment of the Calcutta High Court which had denied bail to a person accused of offences under Sections 120B (conspiracy), 121 (waging war against Government of India), 121A (conspiracy to wage war against Government of India) and 122 (collecting arms, etc., with intention of waging war against the Government of India) of the IPC, Section 25(1A) of the Arms Act, 1959 and Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and Sections 18(conspiring for a terrorist activity),20(being member of a terrorist group),40(1)(b)(c) of the UAPA..The Bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S Oka observed that while the charges against the appellant were serious, factors like the period of incarceration and the likely time within which the trial might be conducted must be considered for grant of bail. The Bench also noted that the appellant is 74 years old and has already spent nine and a half years in jail as an undertrial..It was also observed that the de facto complainant's statement has still not been recorded. Further, there are 298 prosecution witnesses out of which the respondents have sought to examine 100-150 witnesses, which will further stretch the trial..The Court also noted that the State of West Bengal does not have enough special courts under the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 to conduct trials in a timely manner."It has been informed to this Court that only one such Special Court has been designated by the State of West Bengal to try such cases under the Act 2008. Before us, the order sheets have been placed for perusal of the instant case and it indicates that hearing is taking place only one day in a month and if this procedure is being followed in conducting the trial under Act 2008, it frustrates the very purpose with which the special Courts are designated," the bench stated.It thus directed the State government to designate more dedicated Sessions Courts as Special NIA Courts. The Central government was also directed to ensure that such trials progress speedily, after consulting with the Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court..The Court ultimately overturned the order of the Calcutta High Court and granted bail to the appellant. .[Read order]
