New Delhi: It was Justice Surya Kant (now the Chief Justice of India) who had penned down the ruling in 2021 on behalf of three judge bench and had held that constitutional courts can grant bail to accused on grounds of violation of fundamental right of speedy trial irrespective of stringent bail condition under special law like UAPA. It had granted primacy to constitutional principle over statutory conditions.While allowing bail plea of an alleged PFI member, the apex court had said 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 obligated to release them on bail.“..the presence of statutory restrictions like Section 43D (5) of UAPA per se does not oust the ability of Constitutional Courts to grant bail on grounds of violation of Part III of the Constitution. Indeed, both the restrictions under a statue as well as the powers exercisable under constitutional jurisdiction can be well harmonised. Whereas at commencement of proceedings, courts are expected to appreciate the legislative policy against grant of bail but the rigours of such provisions will melt down where there is no likelihood of trial being completed within a reasonable time and the period of incarceration already undergone has exceeded a substantial part of the prescribed sentence. Such an approach would safeguard against the possibility of provisions like Section 43D (5) being used as the sole metric for denial of bail or for wholesale breach of constitutional right to speedy trial,” Justice Kant had said.While rejecting bail to students activists Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam and allowing the plea of five others, the apex court in Jan had dealt with Najeeb case but said, “The same decision, however, does not indicate as laying down a mechanical rule under which the mere passage of time becomes determinative in every case arising under a special statute. The jurisprudence of this court does not support a construction whereby delay simpliciter eclipses a statutory regime enacted by Parliament to address offences of a special category.“It said the proper constitutional question, therefore, is not whether Article 21 is superior to Section 43D (5). “The proper question is how Article 21 is to be applied where Parliament has expressly conditioned the grant of bail in relation to offences alleged to implicate national security. The law does not contemplate an either-or approach. Nor does it contemplate an unstructured blending of statutory and constitutional considerations. What is required is disciplined judicial scrutiny that gives due regard to both”.In a 2024 case, SC had said “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 under Article 21 of the Constitution then the state or any other prosecuting agency should not oppose the plea for bail on the ground that the crime committed is serious.”
