Court’s Decision
The Bombay High Court allowed the appeal under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act filed by an accused in the 2011 Mumbai triple bomb blast case, setting aside the order of the Special MCOC/NIA Court that had rejected his bail application.
The Division Bench held that continued incarceration for over 13 years without trial amounts to a violation of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution, especially when the completion of the trial is not foreseeable.
The Court observed:
“Speedy and expeditious trial is a facet of the right to life as embodied under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Prolonged detention without conclusion of trial cannot be justified under any pretext.”
Accordingly, the Court directed that the appellant be released on bail, subject to stringent conditions ensuring his cooperation with the ongoing trial.
Facts
The appellant, one of the accused in the 13 July 2011 triple bomb blast cases at Opera House, Zaveri Bazaar, and Kabutarkhana, Dadar, was arrested by the Delhi Police’s Special Cell in February 2012 and subsequently by the Mumbai Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS) in May 2012 through a transfer warrant.
He remained in judicial custody since then. His bail application under Section 439 CrPC was rejected by the Special Court in February 2022. He approached the High Court contending that his continued incarceration for over 13½ years without conclusion of trial was unjustified and unconstitutional.
As per the prosecution, out of over 700 witnesses listed, 400 were to be examined, but after more than four and a half years since charges were framed in March 2021, only 167 witnesses had been examined, with 233 still pending. The appellant, now 65 years old, claimed to suffer from age-related ailments, and sought bail solely on the ground of delay, not on merits.
Issues
- Whether the prolonged incarceration of an accused for more than 13 years without conclusion of trial violates his right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.
- Whether the gravity of the offence can override the constitutional guarantee of personal liberty when trial completion remains uncertain.
- Whether the statutory restrictions under special laws like MCOC and NIA Acts can bar constitutional courts from granting bail in exceptional cases of prolonged pre-trial detention.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The appellant’s counsel argued that the accused has already undergone over 13 years of imprisonment without conviction, which itself violates his fundamental right to a speedy trial. He submitted that there was no realistic prospect of the trial concluding soon, given the large number of witnesses still unexamined and the slow pace of proceedings.
He relied on Article 21, emphasizing that life and liberty cannot be curtailed indefinitely. The counsel clarified that the appeal was not based on merits but purely on humanitarian and constitutional grounds, asserting that the right to a speedy trial is an integral part of the right to life.
He urged that the trial court erred in ignoring the principle that delay itself is a ground for bail, particularly when the prosecution’s pace of examination has been unreasonably slow despite High Court directions to expedite proceedings.
It was further submitted that the accused is an elderly person suffering from medical ailments, and that his incarceration beyond a reasonable period without trial renders the process punitive rather than preventive.
Respondent’s Arguments
The State, represented by the Special Public Prosecutor, strongly opposed the bail, emphasizing the gravity of the offence involving coordinated bomb blasts resulting in multiple deaths and injuries across Mumbai. The State submitted that the heinousness of the crime should outweigh considerations of prolonged custody, and that the accused cannot claim bail merely due to the passage of time.
The prosecution maintained that the trial was being conducted thrice a week and could even be held on a day-to-day basis if directed by the Court. It argued that the delay was not deliberate and was attributable to the complex nature of the case and the large number of witnesses.
To support its argument, the prosecution relied on the following precedents:
- Shaheen Welfare Association v. Union of India (1996) 2 SCC 616
- Ash Mohammad v. Shiv Raj Singh (2012) 9 SCC 446
- Chandrakeshwar Prasad v. State of Bihar (2016) 9 SCC 443
- Brijmani Devi v. Pappu Kumar (2022) 4 SCC 497
- Gurwinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2024) 5 SCC 403
- Kailash v. State of Maharashtra (2024 SCC OnLine Bom 983)
- Mazin Abdul Rahman v. NIA Bengaluru (Criminal Appeal No. 2248 of 2023, Karnataka HC)
The prosecution argued that these judgments emphasize balancing individual liberty against societal interest, and that the accused’s role, as reflected in confessional statements under Section 18 of the MCOC Act, involved harbouring co-accused before and after the blasts, thus constituting serious complicity.
Analysis of the Law
The High Court analyzed the interplay between Article 21 of the Constitution and special statutory restrictions on bail under the NIA and MCOC frameworks. It reiterated that constitutional courts retain the power to grant bail when the continued detention violates fundamental rights, notwithstanding statutory limitations.
Relying on Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb (2021) 3 SCC 713, the Bench emphasized that statutory bars under special enactments cannot override constitutional guarantees. The Court quoted paragraph 17 of Najeeb:
“The presence of statutory restrictions like Section 43D(5) of UAPA does not oust the ability of constitutional courts to grant bail on grounds of violation of Part III rights. Where the trial is unlikely to conclude within a reasonable time and incarceration exceeds a substantial part of the sentence, bail may be granted.”
The Court held that such constitutional oversight prevents the statute from becoming an instrument of injustice.
Precedent Analysis
- Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb (2021) 3 SCC 713 – Held that courts can grant bail despite statutory restrictions if the trial is unlikely to conclude soon and the accused has spent substantial time in custody. Applied directly to the present case.
- Shaheen Welfare Association v. Union of India (1996) 2 SCC 616 – Recognized that under anti-terror laws, prolonged pre-trial detention can justify bail.
- Ash Mohammad v. Shiv Raj Singh (2012) 9 SCC 446 – Stressed proportionality between custody and potential sentence.
- Chandrakeshwar Prasad v. State of Bihar (2016) 9 SCC 443 – Held that undertrials cannot be detained indefinitely merely on account of seriousness of charges.
- Gurwinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2024) 5 SCC 403 – Reinforced that excessive delay undermines the purpose of detention.
- Kailash v. State of Maharashtra (2024 SCC OnLine Bom 983) – Bombay High Court reaffirmed the right to bail in cases of prolonged incarceration under NIA jurisdiction.
Each of these precedents contributed to shaping the Court’s conclusion that constitutional liberty prevails when statutory procedure becomes oppressive.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court noted that despite repeated directions to expedite proceedings, the trial had made minimal progress—only 167 out of 400 intended witnesses examined in over four years after framing of charges. It found no realistic likelihood of completion in the near future.
Emphasizing the constitutional guarantee of personal liberty, the Bench held that continued incarceration ceases to serve the purpose of justice when it degenerates into punishment before conviction.
Justice Gadkari observed that the balance between individual liberty and the interests of justice must tilt in favour of the former when the process itself becomes the punishment. The Court also noted that the accused was elderly, suffering from ailments, and his role, as alleged, was limited to harbouring, not direct participation in the blasts.
Accordingly, applying the Najeeb principle, the Court ruled that prolonged pre-trial detention without likelihood of conclusion of trial entitles the accused to bail.
Conclusion
The High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the Special Court’s order of February 2022. The appellant was directed to be released on bail on executing a personal bond of ₹1 lakh with solvent sureties, subject to the following conditions:
- He must report to the ATS office once every month.
- He shall not tamper with evidence or influence witnesses.
- He shall not leave the trial court’s jurisdiction without permission.
- He must surrender his passport before release.
- He must cooperate with trial proceedings and comply with all directions of the Court.
The Court clarified that these observations were prima facie and confined to the bail adjudication only.
Implications
This ruling reaffirms the constitutional supremacy of the right to speedy trial over procedural rigours in cases of prolonged detention under anti-terror laws. It underscores that bail can be granted even in grave offences when the delay in trial effectively results in punishment without conviction.
The judgment also sends a strong message to investigative agencies and special courts to prioritize expeditious trial to prevent violations of Article 21.
It is a significant precedent balancing national security considerations with human rights jurisprudence, particularly in cases under MCOC and NIA frameworks.
Judgments Cited and Their Relevance
| Case Name | Principle | Relevance in Present Case |
| Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb (2021) | Statutory bars cannot override constitutional liberty. | Foundation for granting bail despite NIA restrictions. |
| Shaheen Welfare Association (1996) | Long custody under anti-terror law justifies bail. | Parallels the appellant’s situation. |
| Ash Mohammad (2012) | Custody must be proportionate to sentence. | Reinforces humanitarian consideration. |
| Chandrakeshwar Prasad (2016) | Indefinite detention violates personal liberty. | Directly applied. |
| Gurwinder Singh (2024) | Excessive delay undermines justice. | Reiterated principle of proportionality. |
| Kailash (2024) | High Court’s power under Article 227 in NIA cases. | Validates constitutional intervention. |
FAQs
1. Can a person accused under anti-terror laws get bail due to long custody?
Yes. The High Court clarified that even under stringent statutes like MCOC or NIA Act, bail may be granted when trial delay violates Article 21.
2. Does gravity of offence always bar bail?
No. Courts consider both gravity and the constitutional right to a speedy trial; prolonged incarceration without progress can outweigh seriousness.
3. What safeguards apply after bail in such cases?
The accused must comply with strict reporting, non-tampering, and jurisdictional restrictions, failing which bail may be cancelled.
