2021 INSC 0786
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
   CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S).   1525     OF 2021
     (Arising out of SLP(Criminal) No(s). 6858 of 2021)
ASHIM @ ASIM KUMAR HARANATH
BHATTACHARYA @ ASIM HARINATH
BHATTACHARYA @ ASEEM KUMAR
BHATTACHARYA …..APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY ….RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
Rastogi, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. The   instant   appeal   has   been   filed   on   behalf   of   accused   no.
6(Ashim   @   Asim   Kumar   Haranath   Bhattacharya)   out   of   the   total
1

number of 14 accused persons seeking post arrest bail which came
to   be   rejected   by   the   learned   trial   Court   by   Order   dated   25 th
February,   2020   and   also   by   the   High   Court   by   Order   dated   15 th
March, 2021.
4. The   FIR   No.   138/2012   dated   1 st
  March,   2012   was   initially
lodged   under   Sections   120B,   121,   121A,   122   of   the   IPC,   Section
25(1A)   of   the   Arms   Act,   1959   and   Section   5   of   the   Explosive
Substances   Act,   1908   against   five   accused   persons   by   a   de­facto
complainant   who   is   an   Inspector,   Special   Task   Force.     Later,   the
National Investigation Agency took over the investigation.   The said
case   was   re­registered   as   RC   No.   01/2012/NIA/DLI   at   PS   NIA
Headquarters,   New   Delhi   for   offences   under   Sections   120B,   121,
121A,   122   IPC,   Section   25(1A)   of   the   Arms   Act   1959,   Section   5   of
the   Explosive   Substances   Act,   1908   and   Sections   18,20,40(1)(b)(c)
of   the   Unlawful   Activities(Prevention)   Act,   1967(hereinafter   being
referred to as “UAP Act”) on 12 th
 April, 2012.  
5. After  investigation, the  charge  sheet was  initially  filed against
A­1   to   A­5   on   23 rd
  August,   2012   and   thereafter   the   first
supplementary   charge   sheet   was   filed   on   27 th
  December,   2012
2

against   A­6   to   A­9   in   which   the   appellant   was   named   as   A­6   and
the second supplementary charge sheet was filed on 3 rd
  July, 2017
against another 5 accused persons.   The said accused persons are
presently absconding.  The charges later came to be framed on 20 th
June,  2019   for   offences   under   Sections   121,  121A,   122,   120B   IPC
and   under   Sections   25(1)(a),   25(1A),   25(1­AA)   of   Arms   Act,   1959
and under Sections 18 and 20 of the UAP Act.   At this stage, PW 1
who   is   the   de­facto   complainant,   his   cross­examination   has   been
going on for quite a long time and still it has not been completed.
6. The appellant was arrested on 6 th
 July, 2012 on the basis of a
production warrant sent to Nagpur Central Jail, Maharashtra.   The
appellant was in jail earlier in connection with another case(FIR No.
28/2007   dated   11 th
  May,   2007)in   which   he   was   acquitted   by   the
competent Court of jurisdiction by a judgment dated 15 th
 February,
2014.
7. It   has   come   on   record   that   there   are   298   prosecution
witnesses  in  the   calendar  of  witnesses  as  referred  to  in  the   charge
sheet   but   it   has   been   stated   in   the   counter   affidavit   filed   by   the
3

respondent that the prosecution in all likelihood may examine only
100 to 105 prosecution witnesses.
8. The   charges   against   the   accused   appellant   are   undoubtedly
serious but the charges will have to be balanced with certain other
factors   like   the   period   of   incarceration   which   the   appellant   has
undergone   and   the   likelihood   period   within   which   the   trial   can   be
expected   to   be   finally   concluded.     That   apart,   the   appellant   is   74
years of age.
9. Learned   counsel   for   the   respondent   vehemently   opposed   the
appeal   filed   by   the   accused   appellant   seeking   post   arrest   bail   and
submits   that   the   delay   is   in   no   manner   be   attributable   to   the
prosecution and this Court may direct the trial Court to take up the
case on day­to­day basis and conclude the trial at the earliest.
10. That the requirement of law as being envisaged under Section
19 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008(hereinafter being
referred  to as  “Act 2008”) mandates that  the trial  under   the Act  of
any offence by a Special Court shall be held on day­to­day basis on
all   working   days   and   have   precedence   over   the   trial   of   any   other
case and Special Courts are to be designated for such an offence by
4

the   Central   Government   in   consultation   with   the   Chief   Justice   of
the   High  Court   as   contemplated   under   Section  11   of   the   Act   2008
but the ground realities are totally  different as in the instant case,
after   the   charge­sheets   came   to   be   filed   way   back   in   2012,   the
charges have been framed after 7 years of filing of the charge­sheet
on 20 th
 June, 2019.
11. We  have to balance  the  nature of  crime in  reference  to  which
the   appellant   is   facing   a   trial.     At   the   same   time,   the   period   of
incarceration   which   has   been   suffered  and   the   likely  period  within
which  the  trial  can   be  expected  to   be  completed,   as  is  informed  to
this   Court   that   the   statement   of   PW­1/de­facto   complainant   has
still not been completed and there are 298 prosecution witnesses in
the   calendar   of   witness   although   the   respondent   has   stated   in   its
counter affidavit that it may examine only 100 to 105 witnesses but
indeed   may   take   its   own   time   to   conclude   the   trial.     This   fact
certainly cannot be ignored that the appellant is in custody since 6 th
July, 2012 and has completed nine and half years of incarceration
as an undertrial prisoner.
5

12. This   Court   has   consistently   observed   in   its   numerous
judgments that the liberty guaranteed in Part III of the Constitution
would cover within its protective ambit not only due procedure and
fairness   but   also   access   to   justice   and   a   speedy   trial   is   imperative
and   the   undertrials   cannot   indefinitely   be   detained   pending   trial.
Once it is obvious that a timely trial would not be possible and the
accused   has   suffered  incarceration   for  a  significant  period   of   time,
the Courts would ordinarily be obligated to enlarge him on bail.
13. Deprivation of personal liberty without ensuring speedy trial is
not   consistent   with   Article   21   of   the   Constitution   of   India.     While
deprivation   of   personal   liberty   for   some   period   may   not   be
avoidable,   period   of   deprivation   pending   trial/appeal   cannot   be
unduly  long.   At the same time, timely  delivery of justice is part of
human   rights   and   denial   of   speedy   justice   is   a   threat   to   public
confidence in the administration of justice.
14. The   three­Judge   Bench   of   this   Court   in   Union   of   India   Vs.
K.A. Najeeb  2021(3) SCC 713 had an occasion to consider the long
incarceration   and  at  the  same time  the  effect  of  Section  43­D(5)  of
the UAP Act and observed as under:­
6

17.   It is thus clear to us that the presence of statutory restrictions
like Section 43­D(5) of the UAPA per se does not oust the ability of
the   constitutional   courts   to   grant   bail   on   grounds   of   violation   of
Part   III   of   the   Constitution.   Indeed,   both   the   restrictions   under   a
statute   as   well   as   the   powers   exercisable   under   constitutional
jurisdiction can be well harmonised. Whereas at commencement of
proceedings,   the   courts   are   expected   to   appreciate   the   legislative
policy   against  grant   of  bail but  the  rigours  of  such  provisions  will
melt   down   where   there   is   no   likelihood   of   trial   being   completed
within   a   reasonable   time   and   the   period   of   incarceration   already
undergone   has   exceeded   a   substantial   part   of   the   prescribed
sentence.   Such   an   approach   would   safeguard   against   the
possibility   of   provisions   like   Section   43­D(5)   of   the   UAPA   being
used as the sole metric for denial of bail or for wholesale breach of
constitutional right to speedy trial.
15. In   the   above   circumstances,   we   are   of   the   view   that   the
appellant accused has made out a case for grant of post­arrest bail
pending trial.
16. Before   parting   with   the   order,   we   would   like   to   observe   that
under   the   scheme   of   the   Act   2008,   the   power   is   vested   with   the
Central   Government   in   consultation   with   the   Chief   Justice   of   the
High   Court,   for   the   trial   of   scheduled   offences,   designate   one   or
more   Courts   of   Session   as   Special   Courts,   by   notification   in   the
Official Gazette, with the place of jurisdiction of special Courts and
its jurisdictional power has been defined under Sections 13 and 14
of   the   Act   2008.     At   the   same   time,   it   has   been   mandated   under
7

Section   19   of   the   Act   2008   that   the   trial   under   the   Act   of   any
offence by a Special Court shall be held on day­to­day  basis on all
working   days   and   shall   be   concluded   in   preference   to   the   trial   of
such other case and accordingly the trial of such other case shall, if
necessary, remain in abeyance.   The power of State Government to
designate   one   or   more   Courts   as   Special   Courts   for   the   trial   of
offences under any or all the enactments specified in the Schedule
is provided under Section 22 of the Act, 2008.  
17. It has been informed to this Court that only one such Special
Court has been designated by the State of West Bengal to try such
cases   under   the   Act   2008.     Before   us,   the   order   sheets   have   been
placed for perusal of the instant case and it indicates that hearing
is   taking   place   only   one   day   in   a   month   and   if   this   procedure   is
being followed in conducting  the trial under Act 2008, it frustrates
the very purpose with which the special Courts are designated.
18. It is clearly demonstrated from  the instant case that after  the
charge­sheet came to  be  filed  in the  year   2012, charges  have been
framed   in   June   2019   and   looking   to   the   voluminous   record   and
number   of   the   prosecution   witnesses   which   are   to   be   examined,   it
8

may   take   its   own   time   to   conclude   and   indeed   the   undertrial
prisoner cannot be detained for such a long period of incarceration
noticed   by   us   in   the   instant   case.     The   correspondence   which   has
taken place between the Central Government and the State of West
Bengal   from   time   to   time   is   placed   for   our   perusal   but   nothing
elicits from the record.  
19. In   the   given   circumstances,   we   consider   it   appropriate   to
direct   that   the   State   of   West   Bengal   shall   take   up   the   issue   and
designate   more   dedicated   courts   of   Sessions   as   Special   Courts   for
the   trial   of   offences   specified   in   the   schedule   appended   to   the   Act
2008.     At   the   same   time,   the   Central   Government   may   also,   in
consultation with the Chief Justice of the High Court, Calcutta may
exercise its power and take up the issue at the earliest so that such
trials which are pending under the Act 2008 may go ahead speedily
and   the   mandate,   as   intended   by   the   legislature   in   its   wisdom,
reflected   from   Section   19   of   the   Act,   is   being   complied   with   in   its
letter and spirit.    
20. We accordingly direct that the accused appellant be produced
before   the   trial   Court   within   three   days   and   shall   be   released   on
9

post­arrest   bail   by   the   learned   trial   Court.     We   also   make   it   clear
that the learned trial Court will be at liberty to consider and impose
appropriate   conditions   subject   to   which   the   appellant   accused   will
be   released   on   bail   so   as   to   ensure   that   the   appellant   accused   is
available for trial in terms of the present order.
21. Consequently, in light of the above, the appeal is allowed and
the judgment and order of the High Court is set aside.
22. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
23. Copy   of   this   order   be   sent   to   Chief   Secretary,   State   of   West
Bengal   and   Registrar   of   the   High   Court   of   Calcutta   for   necessary
compliance.
……………………………..J.
(AJAY RASTOGI)
…………………………….J.
(ABHAY S. OKA)
NEW DELHI
DECEMBER 01, 2021
10