Case Title: Gurmito v. Central Bureau of Investigation
The Delhi High Court has issued an incredibly laudable, historic, learned, and most recent judgement in Bail Appl 1621/2022 pronounced on July 20, 2022, which upholds the paramount importance regarding the urgent need to hold a speedy trial and most commendably links it as an inseparable part of the fundamental rights under Article 21 of our Constitution which talks about the right to life and personal liberty.
Denial of bail without any chance of the trial completing soon would violate the accused person's right granted by Article 21 of the Constitution, according to the Single Judge Bench led by the Honorable Justice Jasmeet Singh. A request had been made for the accused to be released on normal bail under the NDPS Act till the CBI's registered case was finally resolved.
According to the applicant’s counsel, the applicant has been held in judicial custody since December 18, 2016, with the exception of a 20-day break, and she is protected by the ruling of the Honorable Supreme Court in Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee (Representing undertrial detainees) vs. Union of India. According to the. Counsel, where an undertrial prisoner is charged with an Act offence carrying a minimum sentence of 10 years in prison and a minimum fine of 1 lakh, such an undertrial prisoner may be released on bail if he has been in custody for at least 5 years, subject to the conditions outlined in the aforementioned judgement.
The learned attorney for the respondent, however, argues that the remarks of the Hon. Supreme Court was only ever made in that particular instance due to the special circumstances that the NDPS Courts were not yet operational in the State of Maharashtra.
Directorate of Revenue Intelligence v. Atul Aggarwal, a coordinating bench of this Court made the following observation:
“It's also important to remember that the applicant, in this case, was detained on July 20, 2012. He hasn't been behind bars for nine years. Courts must not ignore the plight of the undertrials who continue to languish in jails as their trials are postponed with no end in sight, keeping in mind that drug trafficking must be discouraged with harsh punishments and that those who engage in such nefarious activities do not deserve any sympathy. Depriving someone of their freedom without providing them with a quick trial is fundamentally unlawful since it goes against the values entrenched in Article 21 of our Constitution. In certain situations, the procedure itself functions as the penalty in the absence of a conviction being announced. One cannot claim that nine years is a little length of time.”
The Bench explained, “According to me, and also the interpretation of a coordinate bench of this Court, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee (supra) directed that in cases where accused persons are in jail and their trials are excessively delayed they may be released on bail where the undertrial accused is charged with an offence(s) under the Act punishable with a minimum imprisonment of ten years and a minimum fine of Rupees one lakh, and, and, and. In the circumstances of that case, it wasn't a one-time measure, but it was intended to be used as a one-time remedy in all situations when the undertrials are detained and their trial's end seems improbable.”
The Bench adds more clarification by saying, "The Hon'ble Supreme Court further stated in para. 16 that the aforementioned observations are not meant to interfere with the Special Courts' authority to grant bail under Section 37 of the Act. This means that the Special Courts are free to grant bail despite the aforementioned conditions, i.e., even before serving half of the minimum sentence. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further stated in para. 16 that the Special Courts are always free to revoke the bail if it is determined that the accused is abusing the liberty of bail."
The Bench stated that "It, therefore, is evident that speedy trial is an integral feature of Article 21 of the Constitution and that the denial of same may, in some circumstances/conditions, be a reason for bail. I have also heard the petitioner on merits.
According to the applicant's attorney, the charge sheet shows that the applicant did not possess a cell phone or any money.
There is nothing wrong with the applicant other than the fact that she was riding in a Scorpio Car with her spouse.
She also does not own the Scorpio, nor did she rent it.
She did not even employ the car's driver.
The narcotics that were discovered in the automobile rather than on her person were retrieved.
The Court said "Prima Facie, it would seem that the accused is not accountable for the crime. If she participated in a criminal conspiracy as defined by Section 29 of the Act, this must be resolved during the trial so that the trial court can examine the specifics of the alleged crime in greater detail and determine her guilt or culpability, if any, after the trial. However, at this point, denying bail without any chance of the trial wrapping up soon would violate her right protected by Article 21 of the Constitution."
The Bench then considers that, in order to put matters in perspective, "I am also to believe that there are good grounds to believe that the accused is not responsible for the claimed crime for the reasons already mentioned. Furthermore, I also believe that the applicant is unlikely to break the law while out on bail. The APP has also been given a chance to object to the bail application. As a result, Section 37's requirements are likewise met."
Overall, the Delhi High Court has made it very plain that denying an accused person a timely trial violates their constitutionally protected right to due process and may be a basis for bail.