26

Jul

Javed Shaikh Case : Delay in trial  ‘Mockery Of Justice’, Says Supreme Court

image

Anwarul Haq Baig

A person with a beard Description automatically generated

New Delhi | Friday | 26 July 2024

In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India sharply rebuked the National Investigation Agency (NIA), trial courts, and the Bombay High Court for prolonged trial delays, emphasizing that such delays make a “mockery of justice,” and granted bail to Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh, an accused who spent four years in jail without charges being framed against him.

On Wednesday, a Division Bench comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Ujjal Bhuyan heard an appeal against the Bombay High Court order that had earlier in February declined to release Shaikh on bail.

The SC bench stated, “We are convinced that the manner in which the prosecuting agency as well as the Court have proceeded, the right of the accused to have a speedy trial could be said to have been infringed thereby violating Article 21 of the Constitution.”

Javed Shaikh, a 36-year-old resident of Kalwa in Thane district, was arrested by the Mumbai police on February 9, 2020, outside the city’s Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj International Airport upon his arrival from Dubai. The police had claimed to have seized “high quality” fake currency notes with a face value of nearly Rs 24 lakh from him.

 

Article at a glance
 
In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India has rebuked the National Investigation Agency (NIA), trial courts, and the Bombay High Court for prolonged trial delays, stating that such delays make a "mockery of justice." The court granted bail to Javed Gulamnabi Shaikh, who spent four years in jail without charges being framed against him.
 
The Supreme Court emphasized that an accused has a fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, regardless of the seriousness of the crime. The court noted that even after four years of incarceration, the trial court had not framed charges against Shaikh, and the prosecution intended to examine 80 witnesses, raising concerns about the trial's duration.
 
The court reiterated that an accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty and reminded lower courts that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment. The court also pointed out that the NIA Act of 2008 mandates day-to-day trials for cases under its purview, which was not adhered to in Shaikh's case.
 
The judgment has sparked reactions from various quarters, highlighting the broader implications for India's criminal justice system. Many have drawn parallels with other high-profile cases where trials have yet to commence despite years of incarceration. The Supreme Court's ruling sets a precedent that could influence future cases and drive reforms in India's approach to criminal justice.
 
Legal experts and civil society organizations are calling for a comprehensive review of the criminal justice system, focusing on reducing pre-trial detentions, expediting trials, and ensuring the rights of the accused are protected. There are also growing demands for a more transparent and accountable process in cases involving national security concerns.

 

According to Mumbai’s Joint Commissioner of Police (Crime) Santosh Rastogi, Shaikh had previously visited Dubai and Bangkok and was suspected of bringing in multiple such consignments. Rastogi said the arrest was made based on a tip-off from central agencies, including the CIA.

The NIA took over the case on February 14, 2020, re-registering it as a case of Fake Indian Currency Note (FICN) circulation. On August 6, 2020, the agency filed a charge sheet against Shaikh under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and the UAPA. The NIA’s charge sheet alleged that Shaikh had entered into a criminal conspiracy with unidentified persons between October 2019 and February 2020 to possess and circulate high-quality FICN worth Rs 23,86,000, with the intent to damage India’s monetary stability.

Supreme Court’s Observations

In granting bail to Shaikh, the Supreme Court made several critical observations about the state of the criminal justice system and the rights of the accused.

The Supreme Court emphasized that regardless of the seriousness of a crime, an accused has a fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.

The bench stated, “We are convinced that the manner in which the prosecuting agency as well as the Court have proceeded, the right of the accused to have a speedy trial could be said to have been infringed thereby violating Article 21 of the Constitution.”

The court noted that even after four years of incarceration, the trial court had not even proceeded to frame charges against Shaikh. Moreover, the prosecution intended to examine no less than eighty witnesses, raising concerns about the potential duration of the trial.

The court reiterated the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that an accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty, stating, “The over-arching postulate of criminal jurisprudence that an accused is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty cannot be brushed aside lightly, howsoever stringent the penal law may be.”

The Supreme Court reminded lower courts that “bail is not to be withheld as a punishment,” expressing concern that this principle seems to have been forgotten over time.

In a noteworthy observation, the court stated, “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 perspective underscores the need for a more nuanced and rehabilitative approach to criminal justice.

The court pointed out that the NIA Act of 2008 mandates day-to-day trials on all working days for cases under its purview, with such trials taking precedence over other cases. This provision was not adhered to in Shaikh’s case.

The bench suggested that if the state or prosecuting agencies, including courts, cannot protect an accused’s fundamental right to a speedy trial, they should not oppose bail pleas on the grounds of the crime’s seriousness. The court expressed dismay at the prolonged pre-trial detention, questioning the effectiveness of a system that keeps an accused in jail for years without even framing charges.

Reactions

The case, registered under the stringent UAPA, has drawn attention to the plight of undertrials languishing in jails for extended periods without their cases progressing through the judicial system.

The Supreme Court’s decision has prompted responses from various quarters, highlighting the broader implications for India’s criminal justice system.

Manu Sebastian, Managing Editor of Live Law, drew parallels with other high-profile cases like the Bhima Koregaon case, where trials have yet to commence despite years of incarceration.

Samar Halarnkar, former editor of HT Mumbai edition and writer, reacted on social media, saying, “No surprises the accused is a Kashmiri,” hinting at potential biases in the system.

Writer Sangita commented, “This has been weaponized by Modi Govt. Umar Khalid, Bhima Koregaon cases have been under trial for years…! Father Stan Swamy died under trial. A slow cruel process is the punishment.”

Journalist and author Debasish Roy Chowdhury criticized the judiciary, stating, “Holding a person in jail for four years without charges or trial is the real mockery of justice, one which the judges are guilty of, not the NIA.”

Utkarsh Anand, National Legal Editor of Hindustan Times, highlighted the constitutional aspect, saying, “Article 21 of the Constitution gives all individuals the fundamental right to life and personal liberty. Through a catena of Supreme Court judgments, the right to speedy trial has been acknowledged as an extension of Article 21.”

These reactions underscore the widespread concern about the use of stringent laws like UAPA and the prolonged detention of accused persons without trial. The Supreme Court’s ruling not only provides relief to one individual but also sets a precedent that could influence future cases and potentially drive much-needed reforms in India’s approach to criminal justice. In the coming months, it will be crucial to observe how this judgment impacts other similar cases and whether it leads to concrete steps towards ensuring speedier trials and more judicious use of stringent laws like UAPA. Legal experts and civil society organizations are calling for a comprehensive review of the criminal justice system, with a focus on reducing pre-trial detentions, expediting trials, and ensuring that the rights of the accused are protected. There are also growing demands for a more transparent and accountable process in such cases involving national security concerns.

---------------

  • Share:

About Us

We must explain to you how all seds this mistakens idea off denouncing pleasures and praising pain was born and I will give you a completed accounts..

Contact Us

Contact Info

  • 70, Gyan Khand- 4, Indirapuram, Ghaziabad. Uttar Pradesh.
  • +91-9810533682
  • info@mediamap.co.in
  • Week Days: 09.00 to 18.00 Sunday: Closed