Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Munib Iqbal Memon, was arrested on 26 December 2012 in connection with five bomb blasts that occurred in Pune on 1 August 2012. The blasts were allegedly planned by the Indian Mujahideen to avenge the death of Quatil Siddique. The appellant was charged under various provisions of the IPC, Explosive Substances Act, Arms Act, UAPA, and MCOC Act. His first bail appeal (Criminal Appeal No.299 of 2022) was dismissed by the Bombay High Court on 27 September 2022, observing that there were reasonable grounds to believe the accusations were prima facie true. Subsequently, the appellant filed a second bail appeal on the ground of delay in trial, arguing that his right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution had been infringed. He had been in pre-trial detention for almost 11½ years. The trial had not progressed significantly; charge was framed only in 2022, and by February 2024, only the first witness had been examined. Despite the court's earlier direction to expedite the trial, only 7 witnesses had been examined out of 107 proposed witnesses. The appellant's counsel relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Sheikh Javed Iqbal v. State of Uttar Pradesh, which held that statutory restrictions like Section 43-D(5) of UAPA do not come in the way of granting bail when there is a delay in trial. The Special Public Prosecutor opposed the bail, arguing that there was no change in circumstances and that the trial would be concluded at the earliest. The court, after considering the submissions and the fact that the appellant had been in custody for over 11 years and the trial was likely to take a long time, held that the appellant's right to speedy trial under Article 21 had been infringed. The court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order, and granted bail to the appellant on certain conditions.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Right to Speedy Trial - Article 21 of the Constitution of India - Bail - The appellant, in pre-trial detention for over 11 years, sought bail on the ground of delay in trial. The court held that the right to speedy trial under Article 21 is a fundamental right and its infringement can override statutory restrictions like Section 43-D(5) of UAPA. The court granted bail, emphasizing that liberty is an intrinsic part of the rule of law. (Paras 1-18) B) Criminal Procedure - Bail - Delay in Trial - Section 43-D(5) of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 - The court held that even under stringent statutes like UAPA, if there is inordinate delay in trial not attributable to the accused, the constitutional court can grant bail. The court relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Sheikh Javed Iqbal v. State of Uttar Pradesh. (Paras 7, 18) C) Criminal Law - Offences under UAPA - Sections 16, 18, 20, 23, 38, 39 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 - The appellant was charged with various offences under UAPA. The court noted that the trial had not progressed significantly despite directions to expedite, and only 7 witnesses had been examined out of 107 proposed witnesses. (Paras 3, 6, 18)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellant is entitled to bail on the ground of delay in trial, resulting in infringement of his right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, despite the earlier dismissal of his bail appeal on merits and the bar under Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 5 February 2024 passed by the learned Special Judge, City Civil and Sessions Court, Greater Bombay in Bail Application (Exhibit-445) in Special Case No.7 of 2013 is set aside. The appellant is directed to be enlarged on bail on such terms and conditions as the trial court may deem fit.
Law Points
- Right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India
- Delay in trial as a ground for bail despite statutory restrictions under Section 43-D(5) of UAPA
- Constitutional courts can grant bail in cases of delayed trial even under stringent penal statutes
