Back
REVATI MOHITE DERE, SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH
Munib Iqbal Memon – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra At the instance of Anti-Terrorism Squad – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Revati Mohite Dere, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Admit. Learned Special Public Prosecutor waives notice on behalf of the respondent-State.
3. By this appeal, preferred under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, ('NIA Act’), the appellant seeks quashing and setting aside of the impugned order dated 5th February 2024, passed by the learned Special Judge, City Civil and Sessions Court, Greater Bombay in Bail Application (Exhibit–445) filed in Special Case No.7 of 2013, by which, the appellant’s application (Exhibit–445) seeking his enlargement on bail, came to be rejected by the said Court. Accordingly, the appellant seeks his enlargement on bail in connection with C.R. No. 9 of 2012 registered with the Anti Terrorism Squad Police Station (‘ATS’), Mumbai (Original C.R. No.168 of 2012, registered with the Deccan Police Station, Pune), for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 307, 435 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code (‘IPC’); Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act; Sections 3 and 25 of the Arms Act; Sections 16(1)(b), 18, 20, 23, 38 and 39 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act of 1967 (‘UAPA’) as amended in 2008;
The judgment establishes that prolonged pre-trial detention can infringe on the constitutional right to a speedy trial, justifying bail even under stringent laws.
Bail – Section 436-A of Cr.P.C. does not exclude offences under NDPS Act – Deprivation of personal liberty without ensuring speedy trial is not consistent with Article 21.
Prolonged incarceration and delay in trial can justify the grant of bail, emphasizing the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Prolonged pre-trial detention can justify bail under Article 21, emphasizing individual liberty rights even amidst stringent statutory limits.
Bail under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA cannot be granted solely due to trial delay; it requires examination of prima facie case merits.
The court upheld the denial of bail for certain accused under the UA[P] Act, emphasizing the prima facie truth of serious charges and the right to a speedy trial, balancing individual liberty against....
Bail under UAPA is an exception; serious charges and prima facie evidence against the accused justify denial of bail.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
