Legal Articles | Court & Judgment Updates

Rajasthan HC Upholds Foreign Nationals' Right to Speedy Trial, Orders Expedited Proceedings for Jailed Approvers

Jaipur, Rajasthan – The Rajasthan High Court, in a significant order, has underscored that the fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution is sacrosanct and extends to foreign nationals, even if they are approvers in a criminal case. While declining to grant immediate bail, the court issued stringent directions to a trial court to expedite proceedings for two Bangladeshi nationals who have been languishing in jail for over eighteen months without trial.

The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand was hearing a bail petition filed by Nurul Islam and M.d. Ahsaanul Kobir, both Bangladeshi citizens, arrested in connection with an illegal kidney transplantation racket.

Case Background

The petitioners were arrested on April 23, 2024, in a case involving human trafficking and illegal kidney transplants registered at Police Station Jawahar Circle, Jaipur. Subsequently, they turned approvers, and their statements led to the arrest of other co-accused persons.

Ironically, while the principal accused in the racket had been granted regular bail, the petitioners remained in custody due to their status as approvers. The trial had not commenced, and charges were yet to be framed, despite more than a year and a half passing since their arrest.

Arguments at the Bar

Counsel for the Petitioners, Mr. K.C. Sharma, argued that the prolonged detention was a gross violation of the petitioners' right to a speedy trial and personal liberty under Article 21. He contended that despite their cooperation, they were being penalized by delays caused by other accused, and their status as foreign nationals should not strip them of fundamental constitutional protections.

Opposing the plea, the Government Advocate, Mr. Rajesh Choudhary, invoked Section 306(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.), which mandates that an approver be detained in custody until the termination of the trial. He argued that this provision is designed to prevent the approver from becoming hostile. He relied on a Larger Bench decision of the same court in Noor Taki alias Mammu Vs. The State of Rajasthan , which upheld this statutory bar.

Court's Analysis: Balancing Statutory Bar with Fundamental Rights

Justice Dhand acknowledged the specific bar on bail for approvers under Section 306(4) Cr.P.C. However, the court found the inordinate delay in the trial proceedings deeply troubling. It held that procedural laws cannot be used to indefinitely curtail the fundamental right to personal liberty.

The court extensively referred to the Noor Taki judgment, noting that the Larger Bench itself had carved out an exception. It held that in exceptional cases of prolonged detention that violate Article 21, the High Court could exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to grant relief.

Emphasizing the universal nature of fundamental rights, the court made a pivotal observation:

> "The protection under Article 21, which guarantees the right of life and personal liberty, extends to all persons and this right is not confined to Indian Citizens alone and it is available to the foreign Nationals as well, who are not the citizens of India. This right to life and dignity guaranteed under Article 21 is available to all human beings, including foreigners."

The court criticized the trial court for the delay, stating, "This Court does not appreciate such act of the Trial Court. The Trial Court cannot defer the matter from one day to another unnecessarily... and thereby cause unncessary delay in framing the charges."

Final Order and Directions

While refraining from granting bail at the current stage, the High Court disposed of the petition with a set of time-bound directions to the trial court to safeguard the petitioners' rights:

1. Frame Charges: The trial court must hear arguments and pass orders on framing charges within four weeks.
   
   
2. Prioritize Testimony: If charges are framed, the statements of the petitioners (approvers) must be recorded on a priority basis as the first two prosecution witnesses.
   
   
3. Liberty to Seek Bail: The court granted liberty to the petitioners to file a fresh application for bail after their statements are recorded by the trial court.

This order serves as a crucial reminder that the right to a speedy trial is an indispensable part of the right to life and liberty, and procedural bars cannot lead to indefinite incarceration without trial, regardless of the accused's nationality.