Right to Speedy Trial Under Article 21 Can Melt Rigours of UAPA's Bail Restriction Under S.43D(5) in Cases of Prolonged Detention: Kerala High Court

Kerala High Court Grants Bail to Four PFI Members in NIA Case, Citing Prolonged Detention and Unlikely Speedy Trial

Ernakulam, Kerala: In a significant ruling underscoring the supremacy of fundamental rights, the Kerala High Court has granted bail to four alleged members of the now-banned Popular Front of India (PFI) accused in a case involving the murder of a BJP activist and charges under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 ( UAPA ). A division bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. and Justice K.V. Jayakumar set aside the NIA Special Court's order, holding that prolonged pre-trial detention without the prospect of a speedy trial infringes upon the accused's rights under Article 21 of the Constitution, thereby softening the stringent bail restrictions under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA .

The appeals were filed by Muhammed Bilal, Riyasudheen, Ansar K.P., and Saheer K.V., who were implicated in the NIA's investigation into the PFI's alleged conspiracy to commit terrorist acts and the murder of Sreenivasan in Palakkad on April 16, 2022.

Background of the Case

The National Investigation Agency (NIA) took over the investigation based on intelligence that PFI and its affiliates were involved in a larger conspiracy to instigate communal violence, radicalize youth, and establish Islamic rule in India by 2047. The prosecution alleged that PFI operated structured wings for intelligence gathering ('Reporters Wing'), combat training ('Physical and Arms Training Wing'), and executions ('Service Wing/Hit teams').

The murder of Sreenivasan was framed as a terrorist act committed in furtherance of this conspiracy to create terror and disturb communal harmony. The appellants were alleged to be members of a 'Defence team' that was present near the scene of the crime, armed with weapons, to provide cover for the 'Assault team' that carried out the murder.

Appellants' Arguments: Violation of Right to Speedy Trial

The counsel for the appellants argued that their continued incarceration was unjustifiable. Key points included:

• Prolonged Detention: The appellants have been in custody for periods ranging from over two to more than three years.
• Trial Delay: The trial has not commenced, and the framing of charges has been stayed by the Supreme Court since May 6, 2024.
• Voluminous Evidence: The case involves 1014 witnesses, 1688 documents, and 696 material objects, making a swift conclusion of the trial highly improbable.
• Parity: Out of 71 accused persons, 49 have already been granted bail by the High Court or the Supreme Court. The appellants, who were part of the 'Defence team' and not the primary assailants, argued for similar treatment.

NIA's Opposition: Gravity of the Offence

The NIA strongly opposed the bail pleas, contending that:

• The appellants were part of a larger conspiracy to overthrow democracy and establish Islamic rule.
• They played a crucial role as members of the 'Defence team,' attending conspiracy meetings, conducting reconnaissance, and being present at the crime scene armed with weapons.
• The gravity of the offences and the prima facie evidence against them attract the bar on bail under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA .
• The delay in trial alone is not a sufficient ground for granting bail in such a serious case.

High Court's Reasoning: Constitutional Rights Prevail

The High Court meticulously analysed the conflict between the statutory restrictions on bail under the UAPA and the fundamental right to a speedy trial. Citing a series of Supreme Court judgments, including the landmark case of Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb , the bench made several key observations.

The court quoted the Supreme Court, emphasizing that statutory restrictions like Section 43D(5) of the UAPA do not oust the power of constitutional courts to grant bail for violations of Part III of the Constitution.

> "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."

The bench concluded that the indefinite delay, exacerbated by the Supreme Court's stay on framing charges, meant there was "no foreseeable possibility of the trial commencing or concluding in the near future."

Final Decision and Implications

Setting aside the NIA court's orders, the High Court allowed the appeals and granted bail to all four appellants. They are to be released upon executing a bond of Rs. 1,00,000 with two solvent sureties each.

The court imposed strict conditions, including surrendering their passports, reporting to the local police station fortnightly, using only one designated mobile number, and not leaving the Ernakulam Revenue District without prior permission.

This judgment reaffirms the legal principle that while stringent anti-terror laws are necessary, they cannot be used to justify indefinite pre-trial detention. It serves as a crucial reminder that the constitutional guarantee of a speedy trial is a fundamental right that can, in exceptional circumstances of prolonged incarceration, override statutory limitations on bail.