Brief of SC order making Right to Speedy Trial as ground for Bail under UAPA - Vrankers

 Brief of SC order making Right to Speedy Trial as ground for Bail under UAPA

Quick Brief of #SupremeCourt's judgment that violation of #FundamentalRight to #SpeedyTrial is a ground for constitutional court to grant bail in #UAPA cases. The Bench which gave the judgment comprised Justices N. V. Ramana, Suryakant and Aniruddha Bose. 

1. According to the facts of the case, a seven-member gang chopped off the right palm of a college professor, T J Joseph, while he was returning home from a Sunday mass at 8 am on July 4, 2010 as a response to a purported act of #Blasphemy. He had allegedly insulted #ProphetMohammed in a question paper prepared by him for an internal examination conducted by the Malayalam department of the Newman College at Thodupuzha. 

2. An #FIR was lodged against the attackers by the victim's wife under Sections 143, 147, 148, 120-B, 341, 427, 323, 324, 326, 506(H), 307, 149 of IPC, and Section 3 of Explosive Substances Act. Over the course of the investigation it was observed that the attack was a part of a larger conspiracy involving meticulous pre-planning, numerous failed attempts and use of dangerous weapons. Consequently, it was found that the respondent was one of the main conspirators and thus Sections 153A, 201, 202, 212 of IPC along with Section 16, 18, 18-B, 19 and 20 of the UAPA were also invoked against him.

 3. On account of him being untraceable during the course of the trial, he was declared an #Absconder and his trial was split from the rest of his coconspirators most of whom were found guilty by the Special Court and awarded cumulative sentence ranging between 2 and 8 years of rigorous imprisonment. 

4. The respondent was finally arrested on 10.04.2015 and a chargesheet was re-filed by the #NationalInvestigationAgency. His bail application was rejected as many as 6 times between 2015-2019 by the Special Court and the High Court on grounds that prima facie he had prior knowledge of the offence, had carried forward common intention of the group and had assisted and facilitated the attack. Thus, the Courts were of the view that the bar against grant of bail under Section 43-D (5) of the UAPA was attracted. 

5. In 2019, the respondent again approached the High Court for the 3rd time, questioning the Special Court's order denying bail. The High Court, placing emphasis on the mandate for an expeditious trial under NIA Act 2008, ordered for the release of the respondent noting that the trial was yet to begin although the respondent had been in custody for the last 4 years. The NIA filed an appeal against this order stating that the High Court erred in granting bail without referring to the statutory rigours of Section 43-D(5) of the Act. The Additional Solicitor General relied on the judgment in National Investigation Agency v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali to make his case.

 6. The Supreme Court after hearing the appeal held that Section 43D (5) of UAPA per se does not oust the ability of Constitutional Courts to grant bail on ground of violation of Fundamental Right to Speedy Trial. The Bench observed that the severity of this provision will be disastrous where there is no likelihood of trial being completed within an appropriate time-frame and the period of incarceration and that the respondent had already exceeded a substantial part of the prescribed sentence. 

7. The Supreme Court held that the reasons that prompted the High Court to give a judgment to this end stemmed from the provisions of #Article21 of the #Constitution. Furthermore, referring to Shaheen Welfare Association v. Union of India, it was argued that such protracted incarceration violates the respondent's right to speedy trial and access to justice. 

8. As a response to the judgment in the Watali case as cited by the appellant, the Supreme Court observed that it dealt with an entirely different factual matrix wherein the High Court had re-acknowledged the entire evidence to overturn the Special Court's conclusion of there being a prima facie case of conviction and simultaneous rejection of bail. 

9. The Court also remarked that the NIA has failed to screen the remaining 276 witnesses and that the accused has been in jail for more than 5 years which makes up for 2/3rd of the incarceration faced by the other coaccused. 10. Thus, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court's order of granting bail to the respondent adding that he shall in the future refrain from participating in any activity that might enrage communal sentiments.