A comment of the Supreme Court on speedy trial of the accused is being discussed. The court has said that no matter what the crime is, the accused have the right to a speedy trial. The Supreme Court made these comments a day after rejecting the bail pleas of Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam. The court said that the accused has a fundamental right to a speedy trial and it does not end with the nature of the crime.
The Supreme Court's comment said that delay in trial is a valid ground for granting bail and relief was given to former Amtek Group chairperson Arvind Dham, who was in jail for the last 16 months in a money laundering case. The bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and Alok Aradhe said, the nature of the crime has no bearing on the right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution. It said that in many cases the SC has granted bail on the basis of long jail term, when the jail term was 3-17 months.
The Supreme Court bench said that it is not right to keep an undertrial in jail for a long time without the trial starting or any significant progress being made in it, because it turns pre-trial custody into punishment. Although Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam are being tried for terrorist activities under the UAPA, the bail provisions are the same as under Section 43D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. Let us tell you that Umar and Sharjeel are in jail for 6 years.
The bench says that if there are reasonable grounds to believe that the allegation against the person is prima facie true, then the accused cannot be released on bail and a condition is imposed on the accused to prove his innocence prima facie.
The court's order granting bail to former Amtech Group chairperson Arvind Dham is contrary to the order given while rejecting the bail plea of Omar-Sharjeel, but it is in line with the orders given earlier by the SC, including in the cases of former Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal and Tamil Nadu minister Senthil Balaji.
Allowing Dham's plea, the bench said that the seriousness of the offense is one of the factors to be considered while deciding bail, but it said that statutory restrictions (as provided under PMLA, UAPA) cannot be allowed to be converted into indefinite pre-trial detention in violation of Article 21.
It is certain that if the State or any prosecuting agency, including the Court, is not able to provide or protect the fundamental right of an accused, that is, is not able to give him the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution, then the State or any other prosecuting agency cannot oppose the bail application on the ground that the offense committed is serious. It says that Article 21 of the Constitution applies regardless of the nature of the offence.
