Constitutional Court can Grant Bail to an Accused Despite Restrictive Statutory Provisions if the Right of the Accused under Article 21 has been Infringed: SC

In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court (SC) of India granted bail to an undertrial prisoner who had been arrested for offence under the UAPA (Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967). While granting him bail, the bench constituting Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan held that a constitutional court cannot be restrained from granting bail to an accused despite restrictive statutory provisions if it finds that the right of the accused under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution has been infringed. 

The operative part of the judgment reads, “A constitutional court cannot be restrained from granting bail to an accused on account of restrictive statutory provisions in a penal statute if it finds that the right of the accused-undertrial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India has been infringed. In that event, such statutory restrictions would not come in the way. Even in the case of interpretation of a penal statute, howsoever stringent it may be, a constitutional court has to lean in favor of constitutionalism and the rule of law of which liberty is an intrinsic part. In the given facts of a particular case, a constitutional court may decline to grant bail. But it would be very wrong to say that under a particular statute, bail cannot be granted. It would run counter to the very grain of our constitutional jurisprudence.” 

During the proceedings, the top court bench also illustrated that an accused is entitled to a speedy trial especially when the charges are serious. The SC bench said, “If the alleged offence is a serious one, it is all the more necessary for the prosecution to ensure that the trial is concluded expeditiously. When a trial gets prolonged, it is not open to the prosecution to oppose bail of the accused-undertrial on the ground that the charges are very serious. Bail cannot be denied only on the ground that the charges are very serious though there is no end in sight for the trial to conclude.” 

In this case, a First Information Report (FIR) was lodged against the appellant by the informant (Inspector) under Sections 121A, 489B, and 489C of the IPC (Indian Penal Code). The informant stated that fake Indian currency notes of the denomination of Rs. 1,000 and Rs. 500, totaling a sum of Rs. 26,03,500.00, were recovered from the possession of the appellant. According to the police, appellant confessed that he was engaged in the illegal trade of supplying counterfeit Indian currency notes in Nepal. Further, he was arrested for the same. On the contrary, the appellant moved a bail application before the Additional Sessions Judge, Special Judge but the same was rejected. Thereafter,  the appellant filed a related bail application before the High Court (HC) which came to be dismissed by the impugned order. 

The HC, by the order, took the view that no cognizance could have been taken by the trial court against the appellant in the absence of any valid sanction of prosecution for the offence under Section 16 of the UAP Act. Furthermore, it held that although sanction for prosecution had been obtained, the same was not based upon recommendation after an independent review of the evidence collected during investigation by the appropriate authority as required under Section 45(2) of the UAP Act. The matter was therefore mentioned before the top court. The Supreme Court emphasized that the right to life and personal liberty enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is overarching and sacrosanct. 

The bench said that a constitutional court cannot be restrained from granting bail to an accused on account of restrictive statutory provisions in a penal statute if it finds that the right of the accused-undertrial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India has been infringed. It pointed out that continued incarceration of the appellant cannot be justified and passed an order granting bail to the appellant. The impugned order of the HC was set aside and quashed. The appellant was directed to be released on bail subject to the fulfillment of the conditions, mentioned in the judgment. The appeal was disposed of.