CASE TITLE:
Sheikh Javed Iqbal @ Ashfaq Ansari @ Javed Ansari V. State of Uttar Pradesh
DATE OF ORDER:
18 July 2024
BENCH:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.B. Pardiwala
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
PARTIES:
Appellant(s)- Sheikh Javed Iqbal @ Ashfaq Ansari @ Javed Ansari
Respondent(s)- State of Uttar Pradesh
SUBJECT:
This case involves reasons behind granting bail to an accused apprehended with a significant amount of counterfeit Indian currency at the Indo-Nepal border. The case sheds light on the balance between public interest and rights guaranteed under article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS:
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
Section 439: Special powers of High Court or Court of Session regarding bail.
Section 482: Saving of inherent power of High Court.
Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 121A: Definition of criminal conspiracy.
Section 489B: Using as genuine, forged or counterfeit currency-notes or bank-notes.
Section 489C: Possession of forged or counterfeit currency notes or bank-notes.
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967
Section 16: Punishment for terrorist act.
Section 45: Cognizance of offences.
BRIEF FACTS:
• First Information Report was lodged against the appellant by the informant Inspector Tej Bahadur Singh under Sections 121A, 489B and 489C of IPC.
• Informant stated that fake Indian currency notes of the denomination of Rs. 1,000 and Rs. 500, totalling a sum of Rs. 26,03,500.00, were recovered from the possession of the appellant at the Indo Nepal border.
• Appellant was apprehended by a constable of the Anti-Terrorism Squad and brought to the Anti-Terrorism Squad Headquarter.
• Appellant disclosed his name as Sheikh Javed Iqbal @ Ashfaq Ansari @ Javed Ansari and he had confessed that he was involved in the illegal trade of supplying counterfeit Indian currency notes in Nepal.
ISSUES RAISED:
• Whether appellant shall be released on bail, as it is evident that the trial would not be concluded in the near future?
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE APPELLANT:
• Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant is in custody for more than nine years. There is no possibility of the criminal trial being concluded in the near future. Therefore, the appellant should be enlarged on bail.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE RESPONDENT:
• Learned Additional Advocate General for the State of Uttar Pradesh submits that the charges against the appellant are very serious in nature.
• Besides, appellant being a foreign national, there is an attendant flight risk. Therefore, appellant may not be released on bail, instead the trial court may be directed to expedite the trial.
• Referring to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State of U.P., she submits that appellant is an accused under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, and is, therefore, not entitled to bail. In this connection, she has referred to a recent decision of this Court in Gurwinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab.
JUDGEMENT ANALYSIS:
• Court noticed that the appellant is in jail since nine years. As per the impugned order, evidence of only two witnesses have been recorded. In the course of hearing, the Bench had queried learned counsel for the parties as to the stage of the trial; how many witnesses the prosecution seeks to examine and evidence of the number of witnesses recorded so far.
• Court declined the prayer of the learned state counsel seeking further time. Learned counsel for the parties were also unable to provide details as to whether the State has moved the High Court after the order of this Court dated 20.02.2024 and whether any order has been passed by the High Court on the same.
• The Court in a catena of judgments has held that an accused or an undertrial has a fundamental right to speedy trial which is traceable to Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 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. 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.
• Court observed that the ultimate justification for deprivation of liberty of an undertrial can only be on account of the accused-undertrial being found guilty of the offences for which he is charged and is being tried. If such a finding is not likely to arrive within a reasonable time, some reliefs becomes necessary. Therefore, a pragmatic approach is required.
CONCLUSION:
• The court is of the considered view that continued incarceration of the appellant cannot be justified. Therefore, the Court is, inclined to grant bail to the appellant.
• The impugned order dated 03.04.2023 of the High Court is set aside and quashed.
• Appellant is directed to be released on bail subject to fulfilment of the following conditions:-
a. Trial court shall impound the passport and/or citizenship documents of the appellant. If those are in the custody of the prosecution, those shall be handed over to the trial court.
b. Appellant shall not leave the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court; he shall provide his address to the trial court.
c. He shall appear before the trial court on each and every date of the trial.
d. In addition to the above, the appellant shall mark his attendance before the police station which the trial court may indicate once in every fortnight till conclusion of the trial.
e. He shall not tamper with the evidence and shall not threaten the witnesses.
• If there is any violation of the bail conditions as above, it would be open to the prosecution to move the trial court for cancellation of bail.
• The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of.
